Allowed

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1369/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alleging offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC regarding forged labels of a complainant's paddy products, the High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application. The court granted bail on stringent conditions, including interrogation, social distancing compliance due to the pandemic, and cooperation with investigation, noting other co-accused were on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation within ten days, execution of bond of RS. 50,000 with two sureties, and adherence to social distancing norms.

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1369 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.375/2019 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:

¶8

SADEER KINAKOOL CHALANDAYIL AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MALATI IBRAHIM HAJI, RUKHIYA MANZIL, IRIKKURP.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670593.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SRI.N.RENIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673101.

¶13

BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A. No.1369 of 2020 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 4th day of August 2020

¶18

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

¶19

2. The petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.375 of 2019 of Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 420,465,468,471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶20

3. The prosecution case is that, a complaint is filed by the Managing Partner of 'M/s.Trans Damodar Agro Products' before the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode. In his complaint, it is alleged that, the de facto complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing high quality Kaima Biriyani paddy from the producers in West Bengal and they market the same all over country after clearing and

¶21

B.A. No.1369 of 2020 3

¶22

packing it in jute bags of 50 kgs. capacity.

¶23

According to the informant, the accused with intent to cause wrongful loss to the de facto complainant forged the label and trade name of the de facto complainant and sold biriyani rice by passing it off as product of the de facto complainant. Hence, the petitioner committed the above offences.

¶24

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, except accused No.3, all other accused were released on bail. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶26

6. The learned public prosecutor, even though, opposed this bail application, submitted that, in the light of the orders passed in favour of the other accused, if this Court grants him bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶27

7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent

¶28

B.A. No.1369 of 2020 4

¶29

conditions. Except the 3^rd accused, all other accused were released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Annexures A,C and D are the bail orders passed in favour of the other accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Annexure B is the bail order of the 3^rd accused.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

B.A. No.1369 of 2020 5

¶33

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.

¶34

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:

¶35

1. The petitioner shall appear

¶36

before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

¶37

2. After interrogation, if the

¶38

Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like

¶39

sum to the satisfaction of the

¶40

officer concerned;

¶41

B.A. No.1369 of 2020 6

¶42

3. 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;

¶43

4. The petitioner shall not leave

¶44

India without permission of the Court;

¶45

5. The petitioner shall not

¶46

commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶47

6. The petitioner shall strictly

¶48

abide by the various guidelines

¶49

B.A. No.1369 of 2020 7

¶50

issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;

¶51

7. 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.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

pkk

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil 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

Ashraf K., Vs State of Kerala

Sudha Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh R.P Vs State of Kerala

Annamma George@ Sini, Vs State of Kerala

S.Ushakumari, Vs the State of Kerala

Lincy Lalu Vs State of Kerala