High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-07-29Bail Granted

DTDC Express Limited and Others v The State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No. 1387 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2020-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application allowed. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation. Post-interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount. Petitioners shall appear for further interrogation as required, shall not leave India without court permission, shall not commit a similar offence, and shall abide by government social distancing and COVID-19 guidelines. If any condition is violated, the jurisdictional court may cancel the bail.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED
MR. RAKESH A.S., Regional Manager, DTDC Express Limited
MR. RAJESH KUMAR, Area Operations Manager, DTDC Express Limited
MRS. MINI PHILOMINA, Credit Finance Controller, DTDC Express Limited
MR. SANJU MUHAMMED, Regional Channel Manager, DTDC Express Limited
MR. SHANAVAS K.S., Assistant Branch Manager, DTDC Express Limited
MR. ABDUL SATHAR P.A., Channel Manager, Operations, DTDC Express Limited
MR. THILAKAN C.G., Assistant Manager (Accounts), DTDC Express Limited
MR. SOMASUNDARAM, Manager, DTDC Express Limited

Respondents

THE STATE OF KERALA represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peermade Police Station, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Binu Mathew
• Sri. Biju C. Abraham
• Kum. T.M. Krishna Priya

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ajith Murali, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail petition under Section 438 CrPC concerns Crime No.583/2019 of Peerumade Police Station, Idukki, where nine petitioners linked to DTDC Express Limited are accused under IPC sections 420, 120B and 477A r/w 34. The prosecution alleges the petitioners conspired to falsify company records and misappropriate funds, transferring amounts alleged to be due to a tenth accused, resulting in alleged loss to the complainant totaling Rs.4,17,000. The defacto complainant had filed a civil suit on 21.10.2019; no interim relief was granted, and the current case was filed on 8.11.2019. The petitioners’ counsel argued that, even if the allegations are accepted, the matter is essentially a monetary dispute; the civil suit demonstrates the dispute is not a violent or urgent matter requiring custodial detention. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but suggested it could be granted with stringent conditions. The court noted the ongoing investigation and, while recognizing the seriousness of alleged offences, relied on the general bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, endorsing social distancing and COVID-19 safety measures by citing Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons and Kerala High Court directions. The court ultimately allowed bail with conditions: appearance before the IO within ten days for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, release on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; ongoing cooperation; no travel outside India; compliance with COVID guidelines; and possible cancellation for breach.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 438IPC Sections 420, 120B, 477A r/w 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submits that even if all allegations are accepted, the dispute is essentially monetary, evidenced by the defacto complainant’s civil suit filed on 21.10.2019 without any interim order; thus custodial interrogation is not necessary and the matter should be resolved through investigation rather than pre-trial detention. They contend that granting bail would not impede the investigation and that deterrence can be achieved through conditions. They emphasize the need to balance liberty with ongoing finances and corporate governance concerns, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing directives.

Contentions of Respondents

The State responds that the offences involve cheating, forgery, and conspiracy with involvement of multiple accused; it insists on a thorough investigation and notes that arrest could be needed if required by the inquiry. While not opposing bail outright, the State urges stringent conditions to prevent flight, tampering with evidence, or compromising the investigation, and to comply with public health guidelines during the pandemic.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing and prison-minimization directives during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to affirm that bail is the rule and jail the exception, guiding the decision to grant bail.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No. 9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions for minimising the number of inmates in prisons, cited in support of COVID-19 related health measures.

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 DTDC Express Limited and Others v The State of Kerala 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1387 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.583/2019 OF Peerumedu Police Station , Idukki** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, HOUSE NO.3, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALURU-560047, REPRESENTED BY MR. RAKESH A.S., REGIONAL MANAGER.** - **2 MR. RAKESH A.S., REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI682033.** - **3 MR. RAJESH KUMAR, AREA OPERATIONS MANAGER, M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-682033.** - **4 MRS. MINI PHILOMINA, CREDIT FINANCE CONTROLLER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI682033.** - **5 MR. SANJU MUHAMMED, REGIONAL CHANNEL MANAGER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI682033.** - **6 MR. SHANAVAS K.S., ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 42/1116, SORTING OFFICE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI.** - **7 MR. ABDUL SATHAR P.A., CHANNEL MANAGER, OPERATIONS, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 42/1116, SORTING OFFICE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI.** - **8 MR. THILAKAN C.G., ASSISTANT MANAGER (ACCOUNTS), DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM,** B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 2 ## **KOCHI-682033.** **9 MR. SOMASUNDARAM, MANAGER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-682033.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM KUM.T.M.KRISHNA PRIYA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING** B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.1387 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.583 of 2019 of Peerumade Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 477A r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 9 with intention of causing illegal gain to them and causing loss to the complainant colluded together and falsified the records of the Company and transferred amounts paid, into the name of the 10[th] accused. The further case of the prosecution is that on account of the salary due to the complainant's staff an amount B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 4 of Rs.2,99,000/- and another amount of Rs.1,18,000/- due as delivery charges to the complainant totaling to Rs.4,17,000/has not been paid to the complainant and has thus cheated the complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted it is only a monitory dispute. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainant already filed a suit before the civil court on 21.10.2019. No interim order passed by the civil court. Thereafter, the present case is filed on 8.11.2019. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the Bail Application submitted that if this Court is granting bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this Bail Application can be allowed. There are allegations and counter allegations about some monitory disputes. Whether there is cheating or forgery is to be investigated by the investigating officer. For B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 5 that purpose custodial interrogation may not be necessary. This Bail Application is pending before this Court from 19.2.2020 onwards. Admittedly, the defacto complainant filed a suit before the civil court. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this 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 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 B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 6 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 propose 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. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 7 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner/petitioners, the B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 8 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-+