High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-03Bail granted on stringent conditions

K.K. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA 7247/2019; BA 7254/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-03
Court Decision / Holding: The bail applications are allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation and again on all Mondays at 10 a.m. until a final report is filed in Crime Nos. 1073 and 1338 of 2018. If the IO proposes arrest after interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court, shall not commit any similar offences, and shall cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner shall comply with social distancing and other Covid‑19 guidelines. Violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail. The court retains liberty to proceed with the investigation in the normal course.
Final Disposition: Bail granted on stringent conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.K. Sasidharan

Respondents

State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Anchal Police Station
Addl.R3 Aliyar Kunju
Addl.R3 Basheer

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R. Krishnakumar (Cherthala)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Renjith.T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

A combined bail order by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan addresses Bail Applications Nos. 7247/2019 and 7254/2019 arising from Crime Nos. 1073/2018 and 1338/2018 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam Rural District. The petitioner, 70-year-old K.K. Sasidharan, is accused of offences under Section 420 IPC. The petitions arise from allegations that Sasidharan, after retirement from service as a co‑operative bank secretary, ran a private finance venture named ‘Kaniyamparambil Finance’ and induced de facto complainants to deposit money, after which the firm reportedly closed and deposits were not returned. Separate private complaints led to police registration and were forwarded to the magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s counsel contended that there is no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC since the dispute is monetary and steps have been taken to repay; there is no credible risk of absconding; the investigation has been delayed, but that cannot permanently deny bail, especially for a senior citizen with health concerns. The Public Prosecutor opposed, arguing that substantial sums were collected and that 420 IPC is prima facie made out, warranting continued investigation. The court, noting the matter largely involves a monetary dispute and observing Covid‑19 considerations, allowed bail with stringent conditions, while directing regular appearances and adherence to health guidelines. The decision also reflects the bail‑as‑rule principle described by higher courts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Section 420 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that while some amount may be unpaid, there is no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC since the dispute is monetary in nature. He has taken steps to repay the sums and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Notices issued to de facto complainants showed no appearance and the investigation has been delayed; the petitioner is a senior citizen with health concerns and is not likely to flee. He urges the court to grant bail under stringent conditions so that the accused can preserve his rights and ensure a fair trial, while complying with Covid‑19 norms.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that a substantial amount was collected and that the de facto complainants were defrauded, making an offence under Section 420 IPC prima facie established. The investigation is at a crucial stage and must be protected from disruption or witness tampering. Public interest and victims’ rights require custody unless stringent conditions are imposed. In light of the Covid‑19 situation, the court should enforce social distancing and health protocols, while ensuring that bail is exercised with strict monitoring and compliance.

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 norms inside prisons and to support Covid‑19 related directions in prison contexts.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	States the basic bail principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, supporting grant of bail with conditions.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions on minimizing inmates and enforcing Covid‑19 safety norms; used to justify bail under health guidelines.

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 K.K. Sasidharan v. 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** **MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7247 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.1073/2018 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **K.K.SASIDHARAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O.KUNJURAMAN, KANIYAM PARAMBIL VEEDU, THEVARTHOTTAM, THADICADU P.O** **BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KEALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM-682031**| |**2**|**SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**ANCHAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.1338/2018), ANCHAL,**| ||**KOLLAM RURAL DISTRICT-691306**| |**3**|**ADDL.R3 ALIYAR KUNJU,**| ||**AGED 53 YEARS**| ||**S/O PAREETHKUNJU, THASLEEMA MANZIL, THADIKKAD,**| ||**ARACKAL VILLAGE,**| ||**PUNALUR-691306.**| **IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/3/2020 IN CRL.MA 1/2020 IN BA-7247/2020.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP,** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7254/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7254 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.1338/2018 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **K.K.SASIDHARAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O.KUNJURAMAN, KANIYAM PARAMBIL VEEDU, THEVARATHOTTAM, THADICADU P.O, ANCHAL-691306** **BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE,COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** - **2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.1338/2018), ANCHAL, KOLLAM RURAL DISTRICT-691306** - **3 ADDL.R3 BASHEER, S/O HAMEED RAWTHER, THAZHATHUVEEDU, EDAMON, PUNALUR-691034** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 10/3/2020 IN CRL.MA 1/2020.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP,** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7247/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 3 ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2020** ... **These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code were heard through Video Conference.** **2. These bail applications are filed by the same petitioner apprehending arrest in Crime No.1073 of 2018 and 1338 of 2018 of Anchal Police Station. The above crimes are registered alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation against the petitioner in both cases are almost same and hence, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.** **3. The gist of the allegation is that, the petitioner was a Secretary of a Co-operative Bank. After retirement, he was conducting a finance institution by name 'Kaniyamparambil Finance'. He prompted the de facto complainants to deposit amount** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 4 **in his financial institution. The de facto complainants in both cases deposited amount in the financial institution. Subsequently, the financial institution was closed and the amount is not returned to the de facto complainants. Hence, the de facto complainants filed separate private complaints before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present case is registered.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. In both cases, notices were issued to the de facto complainants. Even though, notices were received by the de facto complainants, there is no appearance from the de facto complainants. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is true that, some amount is due to the de facto complainants. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is taking all steps to repay the amount. The counsel submitted that, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 5 **6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, huge amount is collected by the financial institution of the petitioner and the petitioner cheated the de facto complainants in these crimes.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the de facto complainants deposited amount in the financial institution of the petitioner and the petitioner has not repaid the amount. Whether an offence under Section 420 is attracted is a matter** **to be decided after investigation. These bail applications are pending from October, 2019 onwards. The crime is registered in 2018. Probably, the investigation of the case was delayed because of the pendency of these bail applications. On going through the complaints, it is clear that, it is a monetary dispute. I make this observation only for the purpose of deciding the bail application of the petitioner. The investigating officer is free to investigate this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 6 **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 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.** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 7 **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 petitioner shall appear** **before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** **2. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays' at 10 a.m. till a final report in Crime Nos. 1073 and 1338 of 2018 of Anchal Police Station is filed.** ## **3. After interrogation, if the** **Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 8 ## **satisfaction of the officer concerned;** **4. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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;** **5. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;** **6. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is** ## **suspected;** **7. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued** B.A. Nos. 7247 & 7254 of 2019 9 **by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid** **19 pandemic;** **8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **pkk** **JUDGE**