Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to the petitioners with stringent ...

Devassia Plamoottil @ P.J. Sebastian, Bency Sebastian and Anupama Sebastian v. State of Kerala, Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor Police Station, and C.T. Lukose @ Thomson Kuttichan

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.1987 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2020-09-15
Court Decision / Holding
This Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) if the IO proposes arrest, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties for like sum; (3) petitioners shall appear for interrogation as required and cooperate with the investigation; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; (5) petitioners shall not commit a similar offence; (6) petitioners shall strictly abide by social distancing guidelines in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Violation may result in cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions as specified in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Devassia Plamoottil @ P.J. Sebastian
  • Bency Sebastian
  • Anupama Sebastian

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor Police Station
  • C.T. Lukose @ Thomsan Kuttichan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.S. Appu
  • • Sri. Akhil S. Vishnu
  • • Sri. Sooraj S

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Sreeja.V, PP (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by three accused in Crime No. 336/2019 of Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam, alleging offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The admitted case is that the petitioners borrowed Rs 40 lakhs from the defacto complainant with an agreement to repay within three months, which did not happen. The complainant approached the Magistrate and the complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of the case. The petitioners argued that even if the facts are accepted, there is no offence under Section 420 IPC since at most it was a monetary transaction; they expressed willingness to comply with conditions if bail were granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but indicated that stringent conditions could be imposed. The court observed that the question of whether an offence under Section 420 IPC is made out is a matter for the investigating officer, and did not pronounce on merits. Relying on Supreme Court guidance that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and in light of Covid-19 social distancing guidelines, the court allowed the application with specific conditions: appearance before IO within ten days; bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties; regular appearance; no travel abroad without court permission; prohibition on committing similar offences; and strict adherence to social distancing norms. The bail is cancellable on violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPCSection 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that even if the allegations are assumed true, there is no offence under Section 420 IPC as it amounts to a monetary transaction rather than a fraudulent misrepresentation or cheating. They contended they were willing to comply with any reasonable conditions for bail and asserted they did not intend to evade the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that if bail were to be granted, it could be with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent flight or further offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In PrisonsSuo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020PositiveCited to justify social distancing and prison guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveCited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in granting fair trial opportunity.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020Mentioned OnlyReferenced as an instance of directions by a Full Bench of this Court, not as a binding precedent in the instant ruling.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Devassia Plamoottil @ P.J. Sebastian, Bency Sebastian and Anupama Sebastian v. State of Kerala, Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor Police Station, and C.T. Lukose @ Thomson Kuttichan and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1987 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.336/2019 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**DEVASSIA PLAMOOTTIL @ P.J. SEBASTIAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 57 YEARS**| ||**S/O. JOSEPH, PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE,**| ||**ETTUMANOOR P.O.**| ||**KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 631.**| |**2**|**BENCY SEBASTIAN,**| ||**AGED 51 YEARS**| ||**W/O. DEVASSIA,**| ||**PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE,**| ||**ETTUMANOOR P.O.**| ||**KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 631.**| |**3**|**ANUPAMA SEBASTIAN,**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS**| ||**D/O. DEVASSIA,**| ||**PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE,**| ||**ETTUMANOOR P.O.**| ||**KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 631.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**P.S.APPU**| ||**SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU**| ||**SHRI.SOORAJ S**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSPECTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, 682 031.**| |**2**|**INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, 686 631.**| |**3**|**C.T. LUKOSE @ THOMSAN KUTTICHAN,**| ||**AGED 67 YEARS**| ||**CHIRAYIL THOMSOM VILLA,**| ||**ETTUMANOOR DESOM,**| B.A.No.1987 of 2020 2 **ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 631.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.SREEJA.V, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.1987 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ================== B.A.No.1987 of 2020** **================== Dated this the 15[th] day of September, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are the accused in crime No. 336 of 2019 of Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The admitted prosecution case is that, the petitioners borrowed an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs from the defacto complainant agreeing to repay the same within three months. The amount is not returned. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court and the same was B.A.No.1987 of 2020 4 forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present case is registered. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted. The offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. The learned counsel submitted that, it is only a monetary transaction. The learned counsel also submitted that, the petitioners have not committed any offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the bail application, submitted that, if this Court is granting bail stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The admitted prosecution case is that, the petitioners B.A.No.1987 of 2020 5 borrowed certain amounts from the defacto complainant and the amount is not returned. Whether an offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)**_ and a Full Bench of this Court in _**W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020**_ issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. 9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of**_ B.A.No.1987 of 2020 6 ## _**Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870),**_ after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: _1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;_ _2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;_ B.A.No.1987 of 2020 7 _3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;_ _4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;_ _6. The petitioners shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic._ B.A.No.1987 of 2020 8 If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** LU