High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-05Bail Granted

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

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 2627/2020

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 to be released on bail on executing a self bond; the jail authorities must collect a bail bond as per Section 441 Cr.P.C.; the petitioner must provide a phone number and residential address post-release; he must report to the Station House Officer and stay reachable; he must appear before the Investigating Officer as required and cooperate with the investigation; within one week of the jurisdictional court functioning, he must execute a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; he must comply with social distancing and other government guidelines; violation of any condition allows cancellation of bail; the decision cites the need to balance fair trial with public safety and health considerations.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

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, Payyannur Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Rajit, Advocate

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ajith Murali, Public Prosecutor (PP)
• Sri Santhosh Peter, Senior Public Prosecutor (Sr. PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application arises from C.C.No.185/2019 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, connected to Crime No. 9/2012 of Payyannur Police Station. The petitioner, S.D. Chinna Rao, is the 8th accused and a director of Nano Excel Corporation and Nano Excel Power Corporation, with alleged involvement in a money-chain scheme that dishonestly collected funds from customers by making false promises and deposited sums into the accused's accounts without repayment. The offences include IPC sections 420, 120B read with 34, and Sections 4-6 of the Prize Money Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The defense argues that the petitioner is a name-sake director not involved in day-to-day operations and that 684 cases exist against him; 357 have final reports, 327 are in investigation; other accused are on bail; in view of parity and the ongoing pandemic, bail should be granted with conditions. The Public Prosecutor contends that the court may consider bail with stringent conditions to ensure presence and cooperation. The court recalls the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, referencing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement and, in the COVID-19 context, directions from the Supreme Court and this court's Full Bench. It ultimately allows the bail application, directing release on self-bond and bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, reporting duties, address and contact requirements, coordination with police, and strict adherence to social distancing guidelines, with potential revocation for violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence in bail decisions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is a nominal director with no role in day-to-day management; citing that there are 684 cases against him, with 357 final reports and 327 in investigation, and that other accused are on bail. He argues parity: the Managing Director is already on bail, and the court should grant bail with reasonable conditions given social distancing norms and the ongoing COVID-19 situation. He prays for bail to enable fair trial and to avoid unnecessary detention, subject to stringent conditions and cooperation with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor emphasizes the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need to ensure presence and cooperation; while bail is generally permissible, it should be granted with stringent conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses and ensure court appearance. He acknowledges COVID-19 considerations and supports guidance for reducing prison populations, but stresses that the court must balance the accused's rights with public interest and the integrity of the investigation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, reflecting a foundational principle of bail jurisprudence.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Used to justify salutary directives to minimize prison population and promote social distancing in custody contexts.
W.P. (C) No. 9400 of 2020	—	Mentioned Only	Full Bench decision referenced for directions in the COVID-19 context; not central to the ratio of bail here.

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, Payyannur 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. 2627/ 2020 **(** C.C No.185/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, arising from Crime No. 9/2012 of Payyannur 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, Payyannur 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 B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A. No.2627 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.185/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. 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, the petitioner and the co-accused have conducted money chain B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 3 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 Court is granting bail stringent conditions may be imposed for B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 4 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 this Court in **W.P. (C) No. 9400 of 2020** issued B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 5 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 self bond ensuring that he will appear before B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 6 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 number and the place where he is going to B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 7 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. 7. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the B.A.NO. 2627 OF 2020 8 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