Allowed

Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2020Bail Appl./260/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a cheating case. The High Court allowed bail on stringent conditions, ordering appearance for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and compliance with COVID-19 social distancing norms.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including appearing for interrogation within ten days, executing bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, and complying with COVID-19 protocols.

Radhakrishna Pillai 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.260 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.3581/2019 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

1 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 51 YEARS S/O. KESHAVAN PILLAI, RAGESH BHAVAN, PULIKKOTTU MURIYIL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506

¶9

2 ANOOP,

¶10

AGED 25 YEARS

¶11

S/O. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, RAGESH BHAVAN, PULIKKOTTU MURIYIL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION.

¶16

BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.A. NO.260 OF 2020 2

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 14th day of August 2020

¶21

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

¶22

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 3581 of 2019 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶23

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused 1 to 7 with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant entered into an agreement for the sale of a property belonging to the 2^nd respondent. After obtaining an amount of Rs.12 lakhs, the prosecution allege that another property is assigned in the name of the defacto complainant.

¶24

B.A. NO.260 OF 2020 3

¶25

4. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.

¶27

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. According to the counsel, the registration of the document was on 3.11.2018. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed only on 11.11.2019. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶28

6. The learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, for completing the investigation, the presence of the petitioner is necessary.

¶29

7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The admitted prosecution case is that, the petitioners assigned an item of property in the name of the defacto complainant in 2018. The defacto complainant filed a complaint in November, 2019 saying that, the property assigned in the name of

¶30

B.A. NO.260 OF 2020 4

¶31

the defacto complainant is not the property which is intended to be transferred. I do not want to make any observations to the merits of the case. This is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.

¶32

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 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.

¶33

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,

¶34

B.A. NO.260 OF 2020 5

¶35

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

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:

¶37

1. The petitioners shall appear

¶38

before the Investigating Officer

¶39

within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

¶40

2. After interrogation, if the

¶41

Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for

¶42

a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

¶43

satisfaction of the officer

¶44

B.A. NO.260 OF 2020 6

¶45

concerned;

¶46

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 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;

¶47

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

¶48

5. The petitioners shall not

¶49

commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶50

6. The petitioners shall strictly

¶51

B.A. NO.260 OF 2020 7

¶52

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;

¶53

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.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶56

pkk

¶57

JUDGE

Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishna Pillai 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

Ignacious Arooja Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Aatti Aalam Sha Vs the State of Kerala

Anil George Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahad.C Vs the State of Kerala

Gireesh, Vs State of Kerala

Kunhumuhammed K.H. Vs the Station House Officer, Town Police Station