Allowed

Azeem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2020Bail Appl./766/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed bail for the second accused, who is the father-in-law of the victim, in a cheating case involving false document creation. Bail granted on stringent conditions including strict adherence to social distancing guidelines to prevent COVID-19 spread in prisons, following the principle that bail is the rule.

What did the court decide?

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

Azeem Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.766 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.401/2019 OF Parippally Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 AZEEM AGED 32 YEARS S/O.NASARUDEEN, RESIDING AT SAJINA MANZIL, KALLUVATHAKKAL, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 574.

¶9

2 NASARUDEEN AGED 60 YEARS RESIDING AT SAJINA MANZIL, KALLUVATHAKKAL, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 574.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJIVAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

2 RASEENA AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.AZEEM, RESIDING AT RASEENA MANZIL, MUSLIM STREET, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -691 501.

¶14

SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.766/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 6th day of August 2020

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.401 of

¶22

2019 of Parippally Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. When this Bail Application came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner died in an accident after filing this Bail Application and therefore, he is not pressing the Bail Application of the first petitioner.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioners is like this : The deceased first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. The second petitioner is the father in law of the defacto complainant. During the year 2017 and on 19.6.2018, the accused fraudulently and dishonestly used the defacto

¶24

B.A.No.766/2020

¶25

¶26

complainant's signature to obtain the building licence from Kalluvathakkal Grama Panchayat and thereby fraudulently created false document to obtain licence from Sales Tax Department and GST Department.

¶27

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

¶28

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are incorrect. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no specific allegation against the second petitioner. The second petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the Bail Application submitted that if this Court is granting bail to the second petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶30

After hearing both sides, I think the Bail Application

¶31

of the second petitioner can be allowed on stringent conditions. The second petitioner is the father in law of the victim. No serious allegations are raised against the second

¶32

B.A.No.766/2020

¶33

¶34

petitioner. The counsel for the petitioners already submitted that the first petitioner is no more. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Bail Application is allowed on stringent conditions.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

B.A.No.766/2020

¶38

¶39

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:

¶40

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

¶41

(ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the second petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing 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.

¶42

(iii) The second petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The second 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

¶43

B.A.No.766/2020

¶44

¶45

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to

¶46

the Court or to any police officer.

¶47

(iv) The second petitioner shall not leave India without

¶48

permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶49

(v) The second 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.

¶50

(vi) The second 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.

¶51

(vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the second petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is

¶52

granted by this Court.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

csl

Azeem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azeem 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

Tincy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Vishnudas Vs State of Kerala

Dhanyaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Rinto Anto, Vs State of Kerala

Thulaseedharan, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuprasad Vs State of Kerala