High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-12-18Bail granted to the petitioners on stringent co...

SREESHA SREEDHARAN & SONU PORUTHOOKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.8178 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application allowed under Section 438 CrPC with stringent conditions: petitioners to appear before the IO within ten days for interrogation; upon interrogation, they may be released on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties; to appear as required and cooperate with investigations; not to leave India without Court’s permission; not to commit any offence or be involved in similar conduct; to follow all State and Central government social-distancing guidelines; breach of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions under Section 438 CrPC; the order sets out specific conditions and continued judicial oversight to ensure compliance and prevent recurrence.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SREESHA SREEDHARAN
SONU PORUTHOOKARAN

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Addl. Salma Beegum
Defacto complainant (added as respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Premchand M.

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala
• Adv. S. Saju (for Addl. Salma Beegum)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two petitioners, Sreesh a Sreedharan and Sonu Poruthookaran, seek anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC in Crime No. 1210/2020 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleges offences including 354A(1)(ii) IPC, 384, and 506(i) r/w 34 IPC, and 119 of the Kerala Police Act. The alleged facts include the second petitioner threatening the defacto complainant with nude photographs and demanding Rs 25 lakhs; on 30.8.2020 the petitioners and one Silpa Chandran allegedly visited the complainant’s residence, continuing threats. An application to implead the defacto complainant as an additional respondent was allowed. The petitioners contend the case is false and connected to pending matrimonial disputes in the Family Court; they claim only 384 IPC is non-bailable and that, even if allegations are true, bail can be granted with conditions. The defacto complainant opposes bail, arguing the offences are serious. The Public Prosecutor notes the gravity but suggests that bail can be granted with stringent conditions if necessary. The court, considering the matrimonial context and the COVID-19 social-distancing directives, rules that bail can be allowed on stringent conditions, reaffirming the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It directs inter alia reporting to IO, bond, no leaving the country, compliance with guidelines, and possible cancellation on violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 Cr.P.C.Section 354A(1)(ii) IPCSection 384 IPCSection 506(i) IPCSection 34 IPCSection 119 Kerala Police Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Basic bail jurisprudence: grant of bail preferred to ensure fair trial (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement)
COVID-19 prudent-practice: social distancing norms in prisons and related directives (background for precautionary measures)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend the case is a false fabrication, allegedly connected to ongoing matrimonial disputes in the Family Court. They argue that even if the allegations are admitted, the single non-bailable count under Section 384 IPC would not automatically preclude bail; they are ready to comply with stringent conditions and to cooperate with the investigation. They emphasize the gravity of the offences alleged but urge that liberty is the norm pending trial and that punitive safeguards (bonds, conditions, travel restrictions) can ensure fair process while preserving matrimonial arrangements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose immediate bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations, including threats and extortion. They stress that the offences involve criminal intimidation and potentially coercive conduct, and that the case has broader matrimonial-litigation links. While not denying the possibility of bail, they advocate stringent conditions if bail is granted, to prevent tampering with witnesses, ensure cooperation with investigators, and maintain public order; the defacto complainant’s objections underscore the need for caution given the alleged high-stake allegations and family-law context.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Court adopts the basic bail principle from this decision: bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to safeguard the right to a fair trial.
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to reflect Supreme Court directions on social distancing and prison management during the COVID-19 pandemic; used as background guidance rather than a direct substantive ruling in this bail matter.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	null	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directions on COVID-19 related prison norms are acknowledged as supportive background; not directly binding on the bail order’s core reasoning.

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 SREESHA SREEDHARAN & SONU PORUTHOOKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA 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** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.8178 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1210/2020 OF Mala Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **1 SREESHA SREEDHARAN AGED 32 YEARS AMBATT HOUSE KIRALOOR POST, MUNDUR KUNNAMKULAM TALUK THRISSUR - 680541 680541 2 SONU PORUTHOOKARAN AGED 32 YEARS PORUTHOOKARAN HOUSE, KEEZHTHANI THRISSUR - 680701 BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND M. : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031 ADDLR2 ADDL.SALMA BEEGUM, AGED 30 YEARS, NALAKATH HOUSE, VADAMA P.O., MALA, THRISSUR, PIN-680736. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED ASPER ORDER DATED 18.12.2020 IN Crl.M.A.1/2020 IN B.A.NO.8178/2020) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. S.SAJU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 8178 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.8178 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1210/2020 of Mala Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 354 A (1) (ii), 384, 506 (i) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The offence under Section 119 of the Kerala Police Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that the second petitioner threatened the defacto complainant that he is in possession of nude photographs of her and B.A.No. 8178 OF 2020 3 demanded huge amount. It is further alleged that the petitioners and one Silpa Chandran visited the house of the defacto complainant on 30.8.2020 and continued their threat demanding an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. An application is filed by the defacto complainant in this case to implead herself as additional respondent and that application is allowed. 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. There are cases pending before the Family court. To get strength in the contention before the Family Court, this false case is foisted against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the only non-bailable offence B.A.No. 8178 OF 2020 4 alleged against the petitioners is under Section 384 IPC. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 384 IPC is made out. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 7. The counsel for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that this is a clear case in which the offence under Section 384 IPC is made out. The counsel submitted that this Court may not release the petitioners on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. The Public Prosecutor made available the case records. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 9. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail B.A.No. 8178 OF 2020 5 application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there is a divorce petition pending before the Family court which is filed by one Silpa Chandran against her husband who is Sandeep Unnikrishnan. First petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of Silpa Chandran. In that divorce petition, the defacto complainant is a respondent and he is alleged as an adulterer. On the other hand, the above Sandeep Unnikirishnan filed another divorce petition before the Family Court in which the adulterer is shown as the second petitioner herein. Both the Original Petitions are pending before the Family court. The first petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of the Silpa Chandran. There are allegations and counter allegations between both sides. Matrimonial disputes are pending between Silpa Chandran and her husband before the Family Court. According to me, all these cases are connected to the matrimonial relationship B.A.No. 8178 OF 2020 6 between Silpa Chandran and her husband. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and I think, this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 10. 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 COVID19 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. 11. 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.No. 8178 OF 2020 7 **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. 12. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs,.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or B.A.No. 8178 OF 2020 8 indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 6. The petitioners 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 Covid 19 pandemic. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-