Murukesan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4543 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.664/2020 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **MURUKESAN, AGED 54 YEARS, TC NO 20/40, SNRAT, THIRUVONAM,SASTHA NAGAR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 002.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI.I.SHAHUL HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM – 682031.**| |**2**|**ADDL.R2 SHRI. SILASTIN @ STALIN,**| ||**PALLIKKAL THAYYIL,**| ||**PATHIRAPPALLY PO,**| ||**CHETTIKKADU,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-688521**| |**3**|**ADDL.R3 SHRI. SHAJEER,**| ||**PALAZHY HOUSE,**| ||**NEAR RAJEEV JUNCTION,**| ||**SOUTH ARYAD, AVALAKKUNNU,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-688006,**| |**4**|**ADDL.R4 SHRI. PRIBIN**| ||**PALLIPARAMBIL,**| ||**PUNNAPRA,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-686004.**| |**5**|**ADDL.R5 SHRI.MATHEW HENTRY,**| ||**ABHIJITH BHAVAN, AREEPARAMBU,**| ||**CAC-20, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688524.**| B.A.No.4543 of 2020 2 **ADDL.R2 TO R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6/8/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2020 IN BA-4543/2020.** **R1 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.GP R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MANOJ R2-5 BY ADV. SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4543 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **=================== B.A.No.4543 of 2020 =================== Dated this the 7[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 petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 664 of 2020 of Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The petitioner is the State Organising Secretary of Dravida Munnetta Kazhakam (DMK) in Kerala, which is the opposition political party in Tamil Nadu. It is alleged that the defacto complainant and others paid Rs. 50,000/each to the petitioner who offered a job as Ground Staff B.A.No.4543 of 2020 4 at Chennai Airport to them. Subsequently, the job is not arranged and money is not returned to them. Hence, the above complaint is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted no offence is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the defacto complainant was also a member of the DMK Committee. Subsequently, because some dispute he and others resigned and filed this false complaint. 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 opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner defrauded several persons. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. B.A.No.4543 of 2020 5 Admittedly, the petitioner is not a recruiting agency for making appointment at Chennai Airport. It is not clear that, how the defacto complainant and others paid huge amount to the petitioner for getting job. I do not want to make any observations about the merits of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances 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.4543 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 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;_ B.A.No.4543 of 2020 7 _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;_ _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;_ B.A.No.4543 of 2020 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** **JUDGE** SSK/07/09