Soumya Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-06
Court Decision / Holding: The bail applications are allowed. Directions include: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (ii) if arrest is proposed, release on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (iii) appearance as required and cooperation with the investigation; (iv) adherence to state and central government social distancing guidelines; (v) bail can be canceled if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Soumya Muraleedharan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Coyalmannam Police Station, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Renjith B. Marar

Counsels for Respondents

• P.P. Ajith Murali
• Santosh Peter (Sr)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Soumya Muraleedharan, the second accused in Crime Nos. 124/2020 (Coyalmannam Police Station) and 69/2020 (Pattambi Police Station), moved two bail applications under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court alleging offences including IPC section 420, the Kerala Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Sections 3 and 4), and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6). The Court noted that the petitioner is a staff member of M/s. Gen to Gen Trend Enterprises and that several cases exist against him; it relied on Annexure A2 showing an earlier bail order in BA No. 7857/2019 and other connected cases where bail had been granted. The Public Prosecutor conceded that bail had been granted in similar cases. Citing guidelines on social distancing to prevent COVID-19 spread (Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons) and a Full Bench directive (W.P(C) No. 9400 of 2020), the court reaffirmed the bail principle that the grant of bail is the rule and jail is the exception (citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement). The Court allowed the bail applications with conditions: appear before the IO within ten days; if arrest proposed, furnish a Rs. 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties; cooperate with investigation; comply with social distancing guidelines; and the jurisdictional court may cancel bail if conditions are violated. The order covers both B.A. Nos. 2443 and 2442 of 2020.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCIPC 420Section 3 and 4 of the Kerala Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Grant of bail is the basic jurisprudence for fair trial (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant argued for bail citing Annexure A2 (BA No. 7857/2019) and other similar orders granting bail in connected cases, and urged that social distancing norms and the principle that bail is the rule warrant grant of bail in the present circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor conceded that bail has been granted in similar cases and supported granting bail given the comparable circumstances and COVID-19 directions; no strong opposition was raised to bail.

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 justify social distancing measures and directives to minimize inmate population; not a decisive ruling on bail.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited for directives by this Court’s Full Bench on minimizing incarceration during the COVID-19 situation.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Supreme Court principle that the bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, guiding the grant of 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **B.A.NO.2443 OF 2020** (CRIME NO.124/2020 of COYALMANNAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT) ## **Petitioner/Accused No.2.** Soumya Muraleedharan **,** Aged 24 years, D/o. Muraleedharan, M.S.Nivas, Devi Nagar,Andi Madam, Kadukkamkunnam.P.O, Palakkad - Kerala.678 651 By: Adv.Sri.Renjith B.Marar ## **Respondents/ State** 1. State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam 682 031 2. The Sub Inspector of Police Coyalmannam Police Station, Palakkad. ## **BY P.P.SRI.AJITH MURALI & SANTHOSH PETER(SR)** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.05.2020, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.2442 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **B.A.NO.2442 OF 2020** (CRIME NO.69/2020 of PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT) ## **Petitioner/Accused No.2.** SoumyaMuraleedharan **,** Aged 24 years, D/o. Muraleedharan, M.S.Nivas, Devi Nagar,Andi Madam, Kadukkamkunnam.P.O, Palakkad - Kerala.678 651 By: Adv.Sri.Renjith B.Marar ## **Respondents/ State** 1. State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam 682 031 2. The Sub Inspector of Police Coyalmannam Police Station, Palakkad. ## **BY P.P.SRI.AJITH MURALI & SANTHOSH PETER(SR)** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.05.2020, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.2443 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos. 2443 and 2442 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of May, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.124 of 2020 of Coyalmannam Police Station and Crime No.69 of 2020 of Pattambi Police Station. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 4 3.The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant and several others invested huge amount in a firm by name M/s.GEN TO GEN TREND ENTERPRISES, Tamil Nadu. It is alleged that the firm because of some financial irregularities was not able to return the money. The petitioner is a staff in the firm. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that several cases are registered against the petitioner at different places and this court as per Annexure A2 order granted bail to the petitioner. The order dated 28.11.2019 in BA No.7857 of 2019 is produced as an Exhibit. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the above order and other similar circumstance the petitioner may be granted bail. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that in - similar cases petitioner was granted bail. B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 5 6.Considering the facts and circumstance of this case and in the light of the fact that in all other connected cases the petitioner is on bail, I think this bail application also can be allowed. 7. 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 various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. 8. 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** B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 6 **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. 9. 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 7 only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. 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. 4. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of declared lock-down. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, B.A. Nos.2443 & 2442 OF 2020 8 even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,** **JUDGE** ska