High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-17Bail granted with stringent conditions.

K.T. Telson and K.T. Nelson v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.2105 of 2020

Neutral Citation:,

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-17
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation. After interrogation, if an arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bail on bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties for similar amounts. They shall not leave India without court permission, shall not commit further offences, shall comply with social distancing guidelines, and shall surrender their passports. If violated, bail can be canceled. The decision cites prior related orders and the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and follows COVID-19 related prison guidelines.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.T. Telson
K.T. Nelson

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Kaleeswaram Raj
• Sri Varun C. Vijay Kumar
• Thulasi K. Raj
• Smt. Maitrey I Sachidananda Hegde

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two accused in Crime No.129/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station sought bail under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. They are alleged to be directors of TNT Chits Pvt. Ltd. and were accused of cheating investors by misappropriating large sums collected from them. The petitioners claim they resigned from the directorship in 2014 and argue that the alleged offences relate to transactions after their resignations; Annexures A1–A3 are relied upon to show their resignation and to suggest that the petitioners could not have masterminded post-2014 acts. They also rely on a previous order in B.A. No.4853/2020 and connected cases where similar facts allowed bail. The Public Prosecutor counters that the Annexures are created for this case, that custodial interrogation is necessary, and that several other cases are pending, with allegations of large-scale cheating against the petitioners. After hearing, the court notes the absence of prima facie material linking the petitioners to the 2014-onwards acts and refers to the Supreme Court’s dictum that bail is the rule and jail the exception, framing stringent conditions. The court grants bail with conditions including appearance within ten days for interrogation, a Rs 50,000 bond with two sureties, no leaving the country, cooperation with investigation, passport surrender, and adherence to Covid-19 guidelines. It cautions that breach of conditions can lead to cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Section 406 IPCSection 420 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the applicants submitted that the petitioners were not involved in the alleged misappropriation. They resigned from the directorship of TNT Chits Pvt. Ltd. in 2014, and the transactions forming the basis of the crime allegedly occurred after their resignation. Annexures A1–A3 are relied upon to show their resignation and to suggest that the petitioners could not have masterminded post-2014 acts. The counsel cited a recent order dated 14 September 2020 in B.A.No.4853/2020 and connected cases, where this Court granted pre-arrest bail on similar facts, arguing that there is no prima facie material linking them to the offences and that custodial interrogation may not be necessary at this stage. They contend that the allegations of large-scale cheating are sweeping and unrelated to the petitioners’ actions, and emphasise that the petitioners are prepared to cooperate with the investigation. They also contend that COVID-19 safety considerations warrant releasing the petitioners from custody and that stringent conditions can adequately ensure fair trial and prevent flight.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that Annexures A1–A3 are created for this case, custodial interrogation is necessary to establish involvement, and several other cases are pending against the petitioners with allegations of cheating. The prosecution asserted that the petitioners continued to manage the company's affairs post-resignation and misappropriated funds; thus, bail should be refused to ensure proper investigation, custodial questioning, and to prevent tampering with evidence or aggravation of offence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social distancing norms and prison guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Affirms bail as a general rule with jail as exception; used to ground the bail grant.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Full Bench judgment cited for general directions related to pandemic and prison administration.

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.T. Telson and K.T. Nelson 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** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.2105 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.129/2019 OF Hosdurg Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:** **1 K.T.TELSON, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.THOMAS K.S., KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, KUNJITHAI P.O., N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 522. 2 K.T.NELSON, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.THOMAS K.S., KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, KUNJITHAI P.O., N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 522.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No. 2105 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 17[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. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.129 of 2019 of Hosdurg Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that they are the Directors of a chitty company namely TNT Chits Pvt.Ltd and collected huge amounts from different persons and cheated them by misappropriating the same. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 3 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not involved in this case. The counsel for the petitioners relied Annexure A1 to A3 to show that they resigned from the Company in 2014. According to the counsel, the allegation in this crime is related to transactions subsequent to the year 2014. The counsel also submitted that in a similar situation this Court allowed the Bail Application of the petitioners as per order dated 14.9.2020 in B.A. No.4853/2020 and connected cases. 6. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that Annexure A1 to A3 are created by the petitioners for the purpose of this case. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are also necessary. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that several other cases are pending against the petitioners. The petitioners cheated several persons. In such circumstances, this Court may not B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 4 pass orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is a fact that the petitioners are involved in some other cases also. This Court as per order dated 14.9.2020 in B.A.No.4853/2020 and connected cases considered the contentions of the prosecutor raised in this case and rejected the same. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder. _“ 7. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the applications for bail on the ground that crores of rupees have been swindled by the applicants and despite the fact that they officially resigned from the Directorship of the Company, they continued to manage the affairs of the company and also collected huge sums from guileless investors and misappropriated it. At present there is not a scintilla of material collected by the prosecution to indicate that the applicants are responsible for collecting amounts and they were also actively involved in the affairs of the company subsequent to their resignation. Without such materials before this Court, it cannot be said prima facie that they are liable for the affairs of the_ B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 5 _company. Hence, they are entitled to a pre-arrest bail as prayed for in all the three applications.”_ 8. In the light of the above findings, I think the petitioners are also entitled orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C in this case also. Therefore, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions. 9. 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 COVID19 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. 10. 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** B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 6 **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. 11. 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 B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 7 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 them 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. Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Investigating Officer. B.A.No. 2105 OF 2020 8 If there is no passport, they will file an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating officer. 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** al/-