High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-05Bail granted; petitioner released on bail with ...

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

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 2617 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a self bond with specifics (Section 441 Cr.P.C.), with further conditions: phone number and residential address to be provided; bail bond to be forwarded to the jurisdictional Court; report to the Station House Officer after release; appearance before Investigating Officer as required; cooperation with investigation; no intimidation or tampering with witnesses; execute a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts within one week of functioning of the jurisdictional court; abide by State and Central Government social distancing and other COVID-19 related guidelines; the jail authorities to ensure compliance with health directives; the jurisdictional Court may cancel bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; petitioner released on bail with specified conditions and compliance requirements.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. D. Chinna Rao

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Sub Inspector of Police, Pariyaram Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri Rajit

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ajith Mural i, PP
• Sri. S. Peter, SR.PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner S. D. Chinna Rao, the 8th accused in C.C. No.232/2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, is charged along with other directors of Nano Excel Power Corporation with dishonestly collecting money from customers and inducing deposits in accounts not repaid, in alleged money chain practices. The offences cited include IPC sections 420 and 120B read with 34, and Sections 4–6 of the Prize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. Arrested on 03 February 2020, he seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are as many as 684 cases against him and co-accused, with 357 final reports and 327 at crime stage; other accused are on bail, and the petitioner may be released on bail subject to conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters that if bail is granted strict conditions may be necessary to ensure presence, especially given the number of ongoing investigations. The court notes the prevailing principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, and cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to reaffirm this. Considering the similarities with other accused who are already out on bail and the circumstances of the pandemic, the court allows bail, subject to conditions including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, personal bond, reporting obligations, contact details, and compliance with COVID-19 guidelines; breach may lead to cancellation of bail. The order emphasizes the accused’s obligation to cooperate with investigations and refrain from witness tampering, with ongoing monitoring by authorities.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Basic jurisprudence that bail remains the same – grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicant’s counsel contends that the petitioner has been named in a large number of cases (684 cases in total) where the co-accused are largely on bail; considering social distancing imperatives during the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the Managing Director is already on bail, the petitioner should be released on bail with reasonable conditions. It is asserted that the petitioner is a director and not involved in daily affairs of the company; the overarching aim is to ensure a fair trial, not continued detention, and that trial court proceedings will determine the merits. The counsel urges that the incidence of multiple cases and the pandemic environment justify bail with conditions to ensure attendance and cooperation in investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor counters that the grant of bail, even with conditions, must ensure the petitioner’s presence and cooperation, and notes that the other accused may be on bail; if bail is granted, stringent conditions may be necessary to secure trial integrity. The prosecution emphasizes the need to balance personal liberty with public interest, especially in a scheme involving large-scale financial irregularities, and asserts that the court may impose appropriate conditions to safeguard witnesses and evidence while guaranteeing the accused’s trial rights.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reaffirm the principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, shaping the court’s approach to granting bail.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Used to justify social distancing norms and directives to minimize prison populations in the context of COVID-19, supporting bail with reasonable restrictions.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions on minimizing inmates in prisons; cited to bolster guidelines for releases in the pandemic period.

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, Pariyaram 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. 2617 / 2020 ( C.C No.232/2017 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery,arising from Crime.No.446/2011 of CBCID EOW-III ,Kozhikode,arising from Crime No. 183/2011 of Pariyaram 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, Pariyaram 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. 2617 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.2617 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.232/2017 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. 2617 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. 2617 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. 2617 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. 2617 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. 2617 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. 2617 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