High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-07-13Bail granted for the petitioner/petitioners.

Preethi Naveen v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. Nos. 8735/2019 and 8734/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: The bail applications are allowed. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days. If the IO proposes to arrest them, they shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts. The petitioners must cooperate with the investigation, not threaten or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must comply with social distancing guidelines issued in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Violations may lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court.
Final Disposition: Bail granted for the petitioner/petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Preethi Naveen

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.T.Krishnanunni (Sr.), Sri.P.K.Mohanan (Palakkad), Sri.Vinod Ravindranath, Sri.Ashwin Sathyanath, Sri.Anish Antony Anathazhath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. D. Chandrasenan, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

These bail applications arise from Crime Nos. 463/2019 and 269/2019 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, registered against Preethi Naveen, wife of the first accused and a director of the company involved in a flat sale dispute. The de facto complainant had paid part of the consideration for a flat; construction commenced but remained incomplete, and upon cancellation the accused allegedly offered only a partial refund. The petitioner contends she is a sleeping partner with no active involvement in the company’s business; she asserts no direct connection to the alleged offences and that the police should investigate rather than prematurely detain her. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, asserting serious allegations against the first accused and arguing that the petitioner was an active participant in the company’s affairs. After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble Court disposes of both bail applications in a common order, noting the admitted facts and applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It grants bail subject to conditions: appearance before the investigating officer within ten days; if arrest is proposed, the petitioner must furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperate with the investigation and refrain from witness tampering. The Court also directs compliance with social distancing guidelines in prisons in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing relevant directions and precedents, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and COVID-19 related directions from higher courts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 406, 420, 120B read with 34 IPCSection 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends she is the wife of the first accused and a sleeping partner; she was not actively involved in the company’s business. She argues that even if the allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against her, and the matter ought to be investigated, not prejudicially decided in a bail application. The bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to ensure fair trial, subject to appropriate conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contends that the first accused is facing serious allegations and the petitioner is an active participant in the company’s affairs; denying bail would obstruct the investigation and safeguard the state’s interest, arguing that discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC should be refused in light of the alleged prominence of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

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)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to support directives for minimizing prison populations and safeguarding inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, guiding the Court’s approach to bail.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench Directions on COVID-19 related measures in prisons, cited to justify guidelines followed in this case.

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 Preethi Naveen 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 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.8735 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CR 463/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR** **CRIME NO.463/2019 OF Irinjalakuda Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER:** **PREETHI NAVEEN AGED 34 YEARS W/O.NAVEEN, NOW RESIDNG AT C/O.C.B.GEETHA, 10TH STREET, UDAYA NAGAR, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR, PIN-680003** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** **SR.PP. D. CHANDRASENAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8734/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.8734 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1841/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR** **CRIME NO.269/2019 OF Irinjalakuda Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER:** **PREETHI NAVEEN AGED 34 YEARS W/O. NAVEEN, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. C.B. GEETHA, 10TH STREET, UDAYA NAGAR, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR 680 003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM 682 031.** ## **SR.PP. D. CHANDRASENAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8735/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** ------------------------------------- B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 ------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th ] day of July, 2020 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. In both these bail applications, the petitioner is the same. She is the 2[nd] accused in Crime Nos.463 of 2019 & 269 of 2019 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. The allegations against the petitioner in both the bail applications are same. Therefore, I am disposing these bail applications by a common order. 3. The above case is registered by the Ininjalakuda Police against the petitioner and others alleging offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with 34 IPC. 4. It is a case registered based on the complaint received B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 4 from the jurisdictional Magistrate u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. The admitted prosecution case is that the de facto complainant in both the cases booked a flat from the Company in which the petitioner is one of the Director. The admitted prosecution case is that the de facto complainant paid a part of the consideration towards the value of the flat. It is also an admitted fact that the construction of the flat is also started. But it is not completed. It is the case of the prosecution that even though the de facto complainant cancel the deal and they want to get back the money, the accused said that only a part of the amount will be disbursed to them. Hence, this complaint is filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is the 2[nd] accused and he is the wife of the 1[st] accused. He is only a sleeping Director of the Company. He has no direct connection with the allegations raised in the complaint. Therefore, he may be released on bail. 7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 5 Public Prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are there against the 1[st] accused in this case. Petitioner is also an active partner. Therefore, the discretionary jurisdiction u/s.438 Cr.P.C may not be entertained in this case. 8. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed. 9. The petitioner is the wife of the 1[st] accused in both these cases. According to her, she is not actively involved in the business of the Company. He is a sleeping partner of the Company. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence u/s.420 IPC is made out. This is a matter to be investigated by the police. I am not in a position to decide the same in this bail application. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think these bail applications can be allowed. 11. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 6 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. 12. 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. 13. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. The petitioners shall appear before the B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 7 Investigating Officer within ten days from today. 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) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 4. 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. B.A.Nos. 8735 & 8734 of 2019 8 5. 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** cms