Allowed

Sudha Gopakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1530/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC for an accused facing trials for cheque dishonour and criminal breach of trust. The court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is the rule and explicitly citing directives to minimize prison inmates due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; appearance before IO within 10 days; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; appear weekly on Mondays.

Sudha Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.1530 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.117/2020 OF Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

SUDHA GOPAKUMAR AGED 51 YEARS W/O. (LATE) GOPAKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARUNNATTU HOUSE, MANNAR, POOZHIKOL P.O, KOTTAYAM 670 521

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.HARISH R. MENON K.T.SHYAM KUMAR PRASANTH A.G.

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPREENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADURUTHY POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV.

¶16

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶19

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

===================

¶22

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶23

===================

¶24

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2020

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶27

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶28

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 117 of

¶29

2020 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶30

The case is registered based on the complaint filled by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, General, Vaikom. The allegation against the petitioner is that, while working as Secretary in Vanitha Co-operative society, Kaduthuruthy, the petitioner with dishonest intention to cheat and to have unlawful gain has

¶31

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶32

¶33

misappropriated the loans offered by the society to its customers. According to the prosecution, the

¶34

misappropriation were to the extent of Rs. 1,08,19,807/-.

¶35

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

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is suspended from service in 2017 in connection with this allegation. The enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is already completed. The learned counsel submitted that in the enquiry report there is finding against other persons also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if, the entire prosecution case is accepted, the allegation is that there is misappropriation of the fund by manipulating the records. The records of the bank are available in the bank. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is a lady and she is ready to co-operate with the

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

investigation.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the amount involved in this case is huge. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

¶41

It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner is suspended from the bank in 2017. She is facing enquiry. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the domestic enquiry is not completed. The enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is already over. There is finding against the petitioner in that enquiry report. The entire allegations against the petitioner are based on the records of the bank. This bail application was filed on 26.02.2020. This Court passed an interim order deferring the arrest of the petitioner on 19.03.2020. Even now, this interim order is in force. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that

¶42

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶43

¶44

the petitioner is a lady, I think the bail application can be allowed.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

fair trial.

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:

¶51

1. The petitioner shall appear before the

¶52

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

¶53

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶54

Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, she 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 sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶55

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

¶56

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶57

¶58

make any inducement, threat or promise to any

¶59

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;

¶60

4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;

¶61

5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence

¶62

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

¶63

6. 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.

¶64

7. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Monday's at 10 a.m., till the final report is filed in crime No. 117 of 2020 of the Kaduthurthy Police Station.

¶65

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

¶66

¶67

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.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶70

Sudha Gopakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Gopakumar 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

Bushara Vs the Station House Officer

Saneesh v. Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ashraf K., Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh R.P Vs State of Kerala

Shalom Lal Vs State of Kerala