Allowed

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

Kerala HC14 Aug 2020Bail Appl./453/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed for a petitioner accused of forgery under IPC Sections 465, 468, and 471, deposited with a bond of Rs.50,000 and conditions including regular interrogation, adherence to social distancing norms, and prohibition on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail subject to conditions including a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, and adherence to socia

Kunhumuhammed K.H. Vs the Station House Officer, Town… — 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.453 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.683/2019 OF Kozhikode Town Police Station , Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

KUNHUMUHAMMED K.H.

¶9

AGED 49 YEARS S/O.HAMSA, KALPPANGANI HOUSE, PINANGOT P.O., KALPATTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 001.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.

¶14

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶15

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

¶16

BA.No.453 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 14th day of August 2020

¶20

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

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.683/2019 of Town Police Station, Kozhikode. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case is that the petitioner is a PWD contractor. It is alleged that on examining the files it is found that the bank guarantee produced by the petitioner in connection with certain works are forged one.

¶23

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

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted, their case is mainly based on documentary evidence. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The counsel

¶25

submitted that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the present manager of the Kerala Financial Corporation, Wayanad Branch. Therefore, this false case is foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant bail to him.

¶26

The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner intentionally cheated the Government. It is a clear case in which the PWD contractor produced forged bank guarantee before the authorities. In such cases, the Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not pass orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. This bail application was filed on 17.1.2020. When this bail application came up originally, this Court passed an order deferring the arrest of the petitioner. That order is even now pending. At this stage, it is not proper to deny bail to the petitioner. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner the prosecution is mainly relying on the documentary evidence to prove the case. In such circumstances custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶28

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.

¶29

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)

¶30

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.

¶31

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:

¶32

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

¶33

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahad.C Vs the State of Kerala

Gireesh, Vs State of Kerala