Sarika .S. vs. The State Of Kerala

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.213 of 2019 of Edavana Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and her husband alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the first accused is the Managing Director of M/s.Link India Online Services OPC(P) Ltd. It is alleged that with the intent to cheat the defacto complainant M/s.Poppy's Baby Care, the accused obtained an amount of Rs.21,75,901/- on various occasions from the defacto complainant on the promise that the accused will provide Tour packages to the customers of the defacto complainant. The further case of the prosecution is that the

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not actively involved in the business of her husband. The petitioner is not interfering in the day today affairs of the business. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant her bail.

The counsel for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the Bail Application. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that huge amount is cheated by the petitioner and the other accused. According to the counsel, the petitioner is also actively involved in the cheating. The counsel further submitted that the amounts are collected by the petitioner also. The counsel for the defacto complainant flatly denied the case of the petitioner that she is not actively involved in the business of her husband. The counsel further submitted that the first petitioner even now absconding and

The Public Prosecutor also opposed the Bail Application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that huge amount is involved in this case.

The admitted prosecution case is that the petitioner and her husband collected about Rs.21 lakhs from the defacto complainant for arranging a tour to the customers of the defacto complainant. It is the further case of the Prosecution that the petitioner and her husband after collecting the amount cheated the defacto complainant. The petitioner produced Annexure A2 the GST registration certificate to show that the petitioner is not actively involved in this case. Her husband is doing the day today business of the company. The petitioner also submitted that she is having a four year old child. The petitioner also submitted that she is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting her bail. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the role of the petitioner, I think this Bail Application can be

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.

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 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

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose 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.

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

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the juri ictional Court.

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

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.

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the juri ictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE al/-