Allowed

K.S.Vishnudas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1362/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons alleged of forgery and cheating under IPC. Granting bail on stringent conditions requiring appearance for interrogation, cooperation, social distancing, and prevention of absconding.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation within ten days, execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, and adherence to social distancing norms.

K.S.Vishnudas Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

BANo.1362/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.1362 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.35/2020 OF AnthikadPolice Station , Thrissur

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCSED 1 AND 2:

¶10

1 K.S.VISHNUDAS AGED 63 YEARS S/O. SHANMUGHAM, KANADI HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O. THRISSUR 680 565.

¶11

2 K.G. DHARMAPALAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, KARATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O, THRISSUR 680 565.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN SMT.NOVA SEN ABRAHAM

¶13

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶15

SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BANo.1362/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 5th day of August 2020

¶21

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶22

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.35/2020 of Anthikkadu Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 192 and 196 IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the petitioners forged the by-law and made fake letter head, seal and receipts of the Secretary Sivagiri Matt and cheated the defacto complainant, who is the Secretary of Peringottukara Sreenarayana Asramam.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the allegation is only to the effect that the forged documents are produced before the civil court to obtain a decree. According to the counsel, there is no forgery and even if there is any forgery, the civil court has to decide the matter.

¶26

BANo.1362/2020

¶27

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, the allegation is that the forgery is committed before producing the documents in the court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

¶29

This bail application is filed before this Court on 19.2.2020. The petitioners are not arrested in this case. Probably the police may be waiting for a final order in this bail application. The allegation is that the petitioners committed forgery. According to the prosecution, it is proved by documentary evidence. If that is the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.

¶30

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶31

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

¶32

BANo.1362/2020

¶33

¶34

directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶35

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.

¶36

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:

¶37

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶38

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.

¶39

The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

¶40

BANo.1362/2020

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶44

Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶45

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.

¶46

The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 am, till the final report is filed in this case.

¶47

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.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

K.S.Vishnudas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Vishnudas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamma George@ Sini, Vs State of Kerala

S.Ushakumari, Vs the State of Kerala

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil Vs State of Kerala

Tincy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Dhanyaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Kumar T.K. Vs State of Kerala