S. D. Chinna Rao v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: Bail granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions: self bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; production of the residence address and phone number; immediate post-release reporting to the jurisdictional Station House Officer; ongoing cooperation with investigations and appearance before the IO as required; the bail bond to be forwarded to the jurisdictional Court; adherence to social distancing and lockdown guidelines; if any condition is violated, the jurisdictional Court may cancel the bail.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. D. Chinna Rao

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Peringome Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri Rajit

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ajith Mural i, PP
• Sri Santosh Peter, Sr. PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application before the Kerala High Court concerns S. D. Chinna Rao, the 8th accused in C.C. No.110/2019 (Thalassery) charged by CBCID EOW-III, Kozhikode in a money-collection scheme. The case accuses him and other directors of Nano Excel Power Corporation of dishonestly collecting vast sums from customers by false promises and diverting funds, constituting offences under IPC sections 420 and 120B read with 34, and under the Prize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (sections 4-6). The petitioner contends that he is only a nominal director and not involved in day-to-day affairs, and that many co-accused are already on bail or the matters are at various stages; he submits that he is prepared to abide by conditions for bail. The Public Prosecutor counters that if bail is granted, stringent conditions are needed to ensure the petitioner’s presence during trial. The High Court notes that many other accused are on bail and that the COVID-19 pandemic requires minimizing prison populations; applying the principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, relying on Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court grants bail subject to several conditions. It directs self-bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, requires contact details and residence, mandates post-release reporting, imposes ongoing monitoring by the SHO, and reserves the right to cancel bail for breach while urging compliance with lockdown guidelines.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 441 Cr.P.C.Section 420 IPCSection 120B IPCSection 34 IPCPrize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 - Sections 4, 5, 6

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that he is only a nominal director and not involved in day-to-day management; he notes numerous other cases against him but states many co-accused are on bail or the matters are at various stages; he submits that he is prepared to abide by conditions for bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contends that if bail is granted, stringent conditions are required to ensure the petitioner’s presence during trial; emphasizes the need for safeguarding trial and preventing tampering with evidence; notes that the status of co-accused on bail is not clearly established in the brief but the court should enforce strict supervision.

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	Mentioned Only	Cited to support directions for minimizing prison population and social distancing during the pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directions for minimizing inmate numbers referenced in context.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Supports bail as the general rule; detention as exception; underpins the court’s rationale for granting bail.

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 TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2020 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1942 ## B.A.No. 2595 / 2020 ( C.C No.110/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery,arising from Crime.No.816/2011 of CBCID EOW-III ,Kozhikode,arising from Crime No. 320/2011 of Peringome Police Station ) ## PETITIONER/8[th] ACCUSED: S.D.Chinna Rao, 35 years,S/o.Venkiteswara Rao, No.179,Alagiri Street, Majestic Colony,Majestic Colony, Valsalavakkam, Chennai. By Adv. Sri Rajit ## RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Peringome Police Station. SRI. AJITH MURALI, PP SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, SR. PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A. No.2595 of 2020 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5[th] day of May, 2020 **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the 8[th] accused in C.C.No.110/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The above case is charge sheeted by the CBCID EOW-III, Kozhikode. Petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2020. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner who was one of the directors of the company called Nano Excel Corporation and the petitioner along with the co-accused who were the directors and share holders of a Hyderabad and New Delhi based company by name 'Nano Excel Power Corporation' have dishonestly collected huge amounts from customers during various periods by inducing them with false promises and made the customers to deposit money in the accounts of the accused, which were not repaid as promised. Allegedly, B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 3 the petitioner and the co-accused have conducted money chain business. 4. The case is charge sheeted alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B read with 34 IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 of Prize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that all over 684 cases registered against the petitioner and other accused with similar allegations. Among this 684 cases, in 357 cases the prosecution already filed the final report and other 327 cases are in the crime stage. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the other accused in the case are on bail. He also submitted that in almost all the cases the petitioner is on bail. In such circumstances he may be released on bail. He is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, he is not aware whether the other accused are on bail. But if this B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 4 Court is granting bail stringent conditions may be imposed for ensuring the presence of the petitioner during the trial. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also consider the fact that all other accused are released on bail, I think the petitioner also is entitle bail. It is to be noted that the petitioner is one of the director of the company. The Managing Director of the company is already on bail. The contention of the petitioner is that he is only a name sake director and he is not involved in the day today affairs of the company. Anyway these matters are to be decided at the time of trial. To continue detention of the petitioner may not be necessary at this stage. Hence, the petitioner can be released on bail. 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 B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 5 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 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 Superintendent of Jail concerned where the petitioner is incarcerated is directed to release the petitioner on bail on executing a B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 6 self bond ensuring that he will appear before the Court concerned as and when required, if he is not in detention in any other case. It is further directed that the Superintendent of Jail should get the bail bond from the petitioner as stipulated in Section 441 Cr.P.C. 2. The Superintendent of Jail concerned shall also get the phone number and the address at which the petitioner would be residing after his release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioner will forthwith forward the bail bond obtained from the petitioner to the jurisdictional Court. 4. The petitioner immediately after release from the prison, report before the Station House Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station and shall furnish his phone B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 7 number and the place where he is going to reside. The Station House Officer concerned shall keep a vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioner and shall ensure that the petitioner do not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 6. The petitioner shall within one week from the commencement of the functioning of the jurisdictional court, if the court is not functioning at present, execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. B.A..NO. 2595 OF 2020 8 7. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing and other directions in the wake of declared lockdown. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** VPK