Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.8696 OF 2019 CRIME NO.2201/2019 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/A2: SAHADEVAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.APPU, T.C.57/350, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.8696/2019 2
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2020 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime
No.2201 of 2019 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is like this: The defacto complainant is a member of 'Koodathu' family at Karamana in Thiruvananthapuram District. The son of the defacto complainant Sri.Prakash is entitled to the entire properties of
'Koodathu' family by way of intestate succession. Accused Nos.1 to 10 hatched a conspiracy to appropriate the entire assets of 'Koodathu' family. As part of the conspiracy, accused B.A.No.8696/2019 3 Nos.3 to 9, with the connivance of accused Nos.1 and 2, filed O.S.No.135 of 2013 before the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram in respect of the properties of 'Koodathu' family. Sri.Prakash, the son of the defacto
complainant, Sri.Raveendran Nair (Accused No.1) and Sri.Sahadevan, who is the petitioner herein were arrayed as defendants in the suit. As the son of the defacto complainant was not available at home, the defacto complainant was authorised by him to prosecute the suit by way of power of attorney. During the course of the proceedings in the suit, under threat and coercion from the part of the accused, the defacto complainant was compelled to affix her signature in a compromise petition and the same was filed before the court as part of the conspiracy. The accused, thereby, succeeded in getting a decree in their favour in respect of the properties of 'Koodathu' family. The properties thus fraudulently appropriated by the accused worth Crores of Rupees. The properties originally belonged to Sri.Jayamadhavan Nair, an insane person.
B.A.No.8696/2019 4
Accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 had forged a Will and used it as genuine with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by late Jayamadhavan Nair. Accused No.1 alienated the properties fraudulently obtained by him. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused committed breach of trust, cheating etc. Conspiracy is also alleged. The offence under Section 420 IPC is also alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the allegation of the defacto complainant that she executed the compromise deed because of the threat and coercion from the accused is absolutely false. The suit is already decreed. The decree became final. At this distance of time, the criminal offence is not maintainable.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail B.A.No.8696/2019 5
Application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is allegation of threat and coercion from the part of the accused to sign the compromise deed. According to the Public Prosecutor, the forged document is produced before the court and therefore, the police is entitled to investigate the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Crime No.520 of 2011 was registered by the Karamana Police in connection with the death of Jayamadhavan Nair. That case is reopened and now investigating along with this crime.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed. This Bail Application is pending before this
Court from 26.11.2019 onwards. There is an interim order
passed by this Court on 27.11.2019 deferring the arrest of the petitioner. The interim order was extended and the same is still in force. The admitted prosecution case is that the compromise petition filed before the court is signed by the defacto complainant because of threat and coercion from the accused. Admittedly, the civil court passed a decree. Nobody approached
B.A.No.8696/2019 6 the civil court with such a prayer or the civil court decree is not challenged. Whether the offence alleged in this case is made
out or not is a matter to be investigated. For that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. But, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The investigating officer may be waiting for the disposal of this Bail Application to finalise the investigation in this case. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation.
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 various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.
B.A.No.8696/2019 7
9. 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:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
(ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two B.A.No.8696/2019 8 solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iv) The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays till final report is filed in this case.
(v) The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. B.A.No.8696/2019 9
(vii) 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 Covid 19 pandemic. (viii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE csl