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, Peringome Police Station

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 2609 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 to be released on bail on executing a self-bond and furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, reporting requirements, disclosure of residence and contact details, and strict adherence to social distancing and other government lockdown guidelines. The petitioner must appear before the investigating officer as required and cooperate with the investigation; violation may result in cancellation of bail. The bail bond is to be forwarded to the jurisdictional court, and the petitioner must report to the local police station and provide his contact details and residence. The decision follows the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and relies on COVID-19 related directions from the Supreme Court and this Court.
Final Disposition: Bail granted / petitioner released on bail with conditions.

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

• Sri Rajit

Counsels for Respondents

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail petition (B.A. No. 2609 of 2020) concerns the eighth accused, S.D. Chinna Rao, in C.C. No. 737/2019 (Thalassery CJM). The CBCID EOW-III, Kozhikode, has charged him along with other directors and shareholders of Nano Excel Power Corporation in a money-collection scheme, alleging cheating and conspiracy under IPC sections 420 and 120B read with 34, and breaches of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (Sections 4–6). The petitioner contends he is a nominal director not involved in daily affairs, and points to the large number of similar cases (684) with most co-accused either on bail or released on bail elsewhere; several cases have progressed to final reports. He urges bail on grounds of personal liberty, fair trial, and social-distancing directives due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Public Prosecutor counters by stressing the need to secure appearance at trial and cooperation, noting uncertainty about the bail status of other accused. The High Court, observing that the Managing Director is already on bail and many similar cases are on bail, concludes the petitioner is entitled to bail and imposes stringent conditions, including self-bond, sureties, identity reporting, address and phone disclosure, and compliance with lockdown guidelines. The Court cites bail as the general rule and detention as the exception, while relying on Supreme Court and state directives related to COVID-19. The application is allowed with conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a director, is not involved in day-to-day management and is not a flight risk. He notes the number of cases (684) with many co-accused on bail and argues that detention is unnecessary at this stage, particularly under the COVID-19 lockdown. The petitioner is ready to comply with conditions and cooperate with the investigation. He also emphasizes the economic and managerial role of the company, urging release to prevent disruption. The petitioner seeks to uphold the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, subject to reasonable conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution argues for caution due to the gravity of the alleged offences and risk of flight or tampering with witnesses. It notes that not all co-accused may be on bail and that strict conditions may be required to secure presence during trial. It accepts the COVID-19 context but maintains that the court should balance public health concerns with the accused’s liberty, ensuring compliance with investigative processes. The respondents urge that bail should not undermine the prosecution’s case and that appropriate monitoring and restrictions be imposed.

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	Positive	Used to justify social distancing norms and bail-friendly directions under lockdown.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail remains the rule and jail the exception.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of the COVID-19 related directions but not central to the decision.

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, Peringome 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. 2609 / 2020 C.C No.737/2019 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery,arising from Crime.No.818/2011 of CBCID EOW-III ,Kozhikode,arising from Crime No. 322/2011 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. 2609 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A. No.2609 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.737/2019 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. 2609 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. 2609 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. 2609 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. 2609 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. 2609 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. 2609 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