High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-05Bail granted to the applicant; subject to speci...

S.D. Chinna Rao v. State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 2577 of 2020 (C.C No. 892/2019)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: Bail is granted to the petitioner on the following terms: (1) release on self‑bond with a bond under Section 441 Cr.P.C; (2) provide a current phone number and residential address; (3) bail bond to be transmitted to the jurisdictional court immediately after release; (4) petitioner to report to the SHO and furnish contact details; (5) appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; (6) within one week, execute a Rs. 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties; (7) comply with social distancing and related government guidelines; (8) court‑issued conditions may be canceled if violated. The order also directs continuous adherence to re‑entry and monitoring norms during the COVID‑19 lockdown and emphasizes bail as the general rule with detention as the exception.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the applicant; subject to specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S.D.Chinna Rao

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Rajit

Counsels for Respondents

• Ajith Murali
• Santosh Peter

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by S.D. Chinna Rao, the 8th accused in C.C. No. 892/2018 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, arising from Crime Nos. 822/2012 (CBCID EOW-III, Kozhikode) and 1836/2011 (Kannur Town PS). The prosecution alleges a money‑chain scheme through Nano Excel Power Corporation and related entities, involving dishonest collection from customers and non‑payment of promised amounts. The case is charged under IPC Sections 420 and 120B read with Section 34, and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioner contends that he is only a director (not involved in day‑to‑day affairs) and that there are as many as 684 cases against him, with 357 final reports and 327 in the crime stage; other accused are on bail; he asserts that the MD of the company is already on bail. He maintains readiness to abide by conditions and to cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor seeks stringent conditions if bail is granted. The court notes that other accused are on bail and that the petitioner is a director; detention is not necessary at this stage. It grants bail with conditions including self‑bond, Rs. 50,000 bond with two sureties, provision of contact details, reporting to police, and compliance with COVID-19 social distancing norms. The order cites Supreme Court and Kerala High Court COVID-19 directions and reiterates that bail is the rule and detention the exception.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Section 441 of Cr.P.C.Sections 420, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal CodeSections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same: grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure a fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that he is only a nominal director with no day‑to‑day involvement in the company’s affairs. He highlights that there are 684 cases against him, with most other accused on bail, and asserts that detention is unnecessary at this stage. He offers to comply with stringent conditions to ensure presence and cooperation in the investigation and to prevent witness tampering or chain of crime. He emphasizes social‑distancing and public health concerns due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, arguing for release on bail to comply with health directives and to safeguard fundamental rights and fair trial standards. He asserts the willingness to abide by interim conditions and to report to authorities as required, pending trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that, while some accused might be on bail, stringent conditions may be required to secure the petitioner’s presence at trial given the seriousness of the offence and the scale of alleged fraud. He argues for careful monitoring, ensuring compliance with undertakings and witness protection where needed, and adherence to COVID‑19 related health directives. He opposes unnecessary detention but supports conditions to deter tampering and flight, and emphasizes the need to maintain the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

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 reflect Supreme Court directions on COVID-19 and prison health measures but not used to establish a core bail principle in this decision.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions on minimizing prison population and related safeguards cited to justify health-conscious bail considerations.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to support the principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, to ensure fair trial.

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 S.D. Chinna Rao v. State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station 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 TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2020 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1942 ## B.A. No. 2577 / 2020 (C.C No.892/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery,arising from Crime.No.822/2012 of CBCID EOW-III ,Kozhikode,arising from Crime No. 1836/2011 of Kannur Town 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 1. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town 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. 2577 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.2577 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.892/2018 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. 2577 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. 2577 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. 2577 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. 2577 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. 2577 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. 2577 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