Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail application allowed with conditions.

PRADEEP and DAS K.N v STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.8413 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2020-08-03
Court Decision / Holding
Bail application allowed with stringent conditions as set out in the order. Petitioners to appear before IO within 3 days; upon interrogation, if arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of like amount; they shall not leave India; they shall not commit similar offences; they shall comply with COVID-19 distancing guidelines; appear before IO on Mondays at 10 a.m. till final report is filed; non-compliance may result in cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition
Bail application allowed with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • PRADEEP
  • DAS K.N

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, KOCHI-682031 (CRIME NO.423/2019 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District)
  • STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District-678014 (CRIME NO.423/2019 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District)
  • ADDL. R3 SHEREEF, aged 45 years, s/o NOOR MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT FORSHA MANZIL, THCHANKODE, MUTTIKULANGARA, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAGHAT TOWN, NORTH, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.RAJEEV
  • • S.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
  • • S.VINAY
  • • S.D.FEROZE
  • • K.ANAND (A-1921)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM
  • • Smt.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail order concerns a Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC filed by two accused in Crime No.423/2019 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District, who are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly on 01 November 2019 and, at the work site of the defacto complainant, forcibly took two cheque leaves for Rs 5 lakhs and signed papers. The offences alleged include robbery/larceny under Section 395 IPC. The prosecution asserts the incident occurred on 01/11/2019, the FIR was filed on 05/11/2019, and the cheque leaves were presented to the bank on 04/11/2019; the 138 NI Act proceedings are said to have followed. The petitioners contend the entire case is false and a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 NI Act; they argue there is no immediate custodial necessity and that investigation can be completed with the petitioners appearing before the IO. The Public Prosecutor submitted that bail could be granted with stringent conditions if the court finds no immediate need for custodial interrogation. After hearing, the court held that custodial interrogation may not be necessary at this stage; considering the pandemic, social distancing guidelines and bail jurisprudence, the court allowed bail with conditions: appearance before the IO within three days; bond Rs 50,000 with two sureties; restrictions on travel; weekly appearances on Mondays; compliance with distancing norms; and other standard terms. The court directed the IO to proceed with investigation and warned that non-compliance could cancel bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 395 IPCSection 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the case is false and a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 NI Act; the incident date and FI statement are inconsistent; the cheque was presented on 04/11/2019; the 138 NI complaint is an afterthought; custodial interrogation is not essential and bail with stringent conditions would sufficiently safeguard the investigation and fair trial, especially in the context of COVID-19.

Contentions of Respondents

The defacto complainant opposed bail, contending that the petitioners committed the offence and that the 138 NI proceedings are not an afterthought; the cheque was seized and used in 138 proceedings; the investigation may require custodial presence but bail with conditions could impede the investigation; the court should ensure integrity of the process while balancing the health crisis.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons caseSuo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020PositiveCited to justify social distancing measures and prison guidelines that influenced the bail directions during the COVID-19 period.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020PositiveCited to reflect directions by the Full Bench to minimize prison population and guide humane procedures during the pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveCited for the bail jurisprudence principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

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 PRADEEP and DAS K.N v STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS 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.8413 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.423/2019 OF Kasaba Police Station , Palakkad** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**PRADEEP**| |---|---| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KRISHNA KUMAR,**| ||**KRISHNALAYA,**| ||**VENNAKKARA,**| ||**PUTHUPARYARAM,**| ||**PALAKKAD,**| |**2**|**DAS K.N**| ||**AGED 43 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KRISHNA KUMAR,**| ||**KRISHNALAYA, VENNAKKARA,**| ||**PUTHUPARYARAM, PALAKKAD.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.S.RAJEEV**| ||**SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN**| ||**SRI.V.VINAY**| ||**SRI.D.FEROZE**| ||**SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.**| ||**(CRIME NO.423/2019 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD**| ||**DISTRICT)**| |**2**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**KASABA POLICE STATION,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678014,**| ||**(CRIME NO.423/2019 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD**| ||**DISTRICT).**| |**3**|**ADDL. R3 SHEREEF**| ||**AGED 45 YEARS,**| ||**S/O NOOR MUHAMMED,**| B.A.No.8413 of 2019 2 **RESIDING AT FORSHA MANZIL, THCHANKODE, MUTTIKULANGARA, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAGHAT TOWN, NORTH, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA,** **IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.** **R3 BY ADV. R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM R3 BY ADV. SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.8413 of 2019 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **=================== B.A.No.8413 of 2019 =================== Dated this the 3[rd] 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 petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 423/2019 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 01/11/2019 at about 3 p.m. The petitioners along with 6 other persons formed into an unlawful assembly and came to the work site of the defacto complainant and forcefully took two cheque leaves for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and also signed B.A.No.8413 of 2019 4 papers. Hence it is alleged that the petitioners committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this is a false case filed by the defacto complainant to escape from a complaint filed by him under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. According to the counsel, the alleged incident happened on 01/11/2019 whereas the FI statement was filed only on 05/11/2019. According to the counsel, the cheque was presented before the bank on 04/11/2019 as evidenced by Annexure A2. When the cheque was presented, a false complaint is filed against the petitioner on 05/11/2019. According to the counsel, it is a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But he submitted that if this court is granting bail stringent conditions may be imposed. B.A.No.8413 of 2019 5 7. The defacto complainant also appeared through a counsel. The defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. He submitted that, the petitioners committed the offence and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negoitable Instrument Act is an after thought. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also submitted that, the cheque secured by the petitioners herein is used in the 138 proceedings. 8. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are in possession of two cheques and the cheques were presented on 04/11/2019. The present complaint is filed on 05/11/2019. Whether the offence under Section 395 of the IPC is made out or whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is made is a matter to be decided by the court concerned. For that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. It is true that, for completing the investigation in crime No. 423/2019, the B.A.No.8413 of 2019 6 presence of the petitioners may be necessary. For which there can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer immediately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the bail application is allowed stringent conditions may be imposed. 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 B.A.No.8413 of 2019 7 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 three days from today and shall undergo interrogation;_ _2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes 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 with the_ B.A.No.8413 of 2019 8 _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 petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The petitioners 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 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m., till the final report is filed._ B.A.No.8413 of 2019 9 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** LU // True Copy // PA To Judge