Sonia Manoj vs. The State Of Kerala
Original PDF →Dated this the 28th day of July 2020 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.599/2019 of Munnar Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Section 420 IPC.
The admitted prosecution case is that the defacto complainant is having landed properties at Viripara, Mankulam Village, Idukki District. He is conducting a resort namely 'Wild Trail' in the said property. As a part of business expansion, he decided to construct a two storied building having an extent of 2630 Sq.feet. Accordingly, he contacted the petitioner's firm namely 'Indo Homes' at Mavelikkara and obtained a quotation. As per the quotation, the petitioner's firm agreed to complete the construction within 90 days by using wooden panels. The amount was transferred to the petitioner. However, no work was done as promised and thereby the petitioner committed the offence.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel who is appearing for the defacto complainant.
BA.No.681/2020 3
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, she admit the receipt of the amount. She admit that the agreement was to construct a building. But according to him, there is some dispute about the GST payable to the goods purchased. In the bail application itself the petitioner admitted that she is ready to settle that issue. She is even ready to return the amount.
The learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that it is a clear case of cheating. The counsel submitted that several persons are affected because of the cheating of the petitioner in similar fashion. The counsel also submitted that even though the matter was sent for mediation, the petitioner was not ready to settle the matter.
The learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The dispute is regarding monetary transaction. Whether an offence under Section 420 IPC is made out, is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The investigating officer is free to investigate the matter. But
BA.No.681/2020 4 the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case because the petitioner admit the receipt of the amount and she also admit that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant about the construction of the building.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
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
BA.No.681/2020 5 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 directions:
The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
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 co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
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.
The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10 am, till the final report is filed in this case.
If any of the above conditions are violated
BA.No.681/2020 6 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 ab JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.