Madhusoodhanan v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1692 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 565/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD** **CRIME NO.1/2020 OF PARAMBIKULAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **MADHUSOODHANAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O.K.C.PRABHAKARAN, PARAMBIKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 661.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SAJU SRI.A.V.SAJAN SMT.NEELANJANA** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.1692 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ================== B.A.No.1692 of 2020 ================== Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.1/2020 of Parambikulam Police Station, Palakkad District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 465 & 471 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner while working as clerk in charge in the Primary Health Center, Parambikkulam, during 2014 forged the office records and withdrawn the salary of one Shri. Jayaraj, Junior Health Inspector Grade II, for the months of January, February & B.A.No.1692 of 2020 3 August 2014, when that Health Inspector was on leave without allowance for five years from 12.01.2014. The misappropriation was detected in 2019 and the District Medical Officer submitted a complaint to the police and thereafter this case is registered. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution case cannot be believed. According to the counsel, the petitioner was working only as a clerk in the Primary Health Center. The salary bill of a Junior Health Inspector cannot be presented by a clerk, without the counter signature of the Medical Officer. The counsel also submitted that, every year there will be an audit and in the audit also, this is not detected. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is only a scapegoat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed B.A.No.1692 of 2020 4 the bail application. He submitted that, there is a clear evidence against the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner prepared the salary bill during that period. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the same. 7. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I am surprised to note that in such a serious case only the clerk concerned is implicated as an accused. Admittedly, the Junior Health Inspector was on long leave, without allowance from 12.01.2014 onwards. The allegation is that for the month of January, February and August of 2014, the salary of the Officer, who is on long leave is withdrawn by the petitioner. I cannot accept the case of the prosecution that, the petitioner alone is responsible in such situation. If a person is on leave without allowance can a clerk withdraw the salary of him without the connivance of the superior officers is a matter to be investigated. How the audit department missed this dereliction of duty by the Officers B.A.No.1692 of 2020 5 of the department? Whether the Officers of the Audit department also conspired with this petitioner is also a matter to be investigated. The petitioner, who is only a clerk working in this office cannot withdraw the salary without the connivance of the superior officers. Admittedly, there will be a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Center and without his signature a salary bill cannot be submitted. These are matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer in detailed. A detailed investigation is necessary in this case. 8. This bail application was filed on 02.03.2020. This Court passed an order on 19.03.2020, deferring the arrest of the petitioner. That order is in force even now. At this distance of time, it is improper to reject the pre-arrest plea of the petitioner. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. B.A.No.1692 of 2020 6 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 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. 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 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 B.A.No.1692 of 2020 7 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. 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 satisfaction of the officer concerned;_ _3. 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;_ B.A.No.1692 of 2020 8 _4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. 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;_ _6. The petitioner 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._ 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, JUDGE** LU