Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa T.K vs State Of Kerala on 7 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1943
Bail Appl..No.3359 OF 2021
CRIME NO.440/2020 OF Kuttipuram Police Station ,
Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA T.K.
AGED 38 YEARS
SON OF CHEKKUTTY T.K.,
KALATHIL HOUSE, THIRUNAVAYA,
CHEMBIKKAL, VAZHOOR, NADUVATTOM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
673633
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.DIYA P.JISON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
679571
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.P.P.SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3359 of 2021
..2..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3359 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of May, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video
Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.440
of 2021 of Kuttippuram Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and also under Section 66D of the
Information Technology Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused, after
availing a loan of Rs.30 lakhs from the Federal Bank,
Kuttippuram for business purpose, made false and concocted
entries in balance confirmation statement and corrected the
sanctioned loan amount as Rs.4,23,04,580/-. Hence, it is
alleged that the accused committed the offence.
B.A.No.3359 of 2021
..3..
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the the allegation against the
petitioner is not correct. The learned counsel submitted that
no loss is caused to the Federal Bank. The learned counsel
further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any
forgery as alleged. The the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the bail application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true
that the allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary
in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not
clear whether any loss is caused to the Federal Bank. I do not
want to make any observation about the merits of the case.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I
think this bail application can be allowed on stringent
conditions.
6. Moreover, the 2nd wave of COVID-19 is
spreading in the country and the citizens are facing serious
difficulties. In the state of Kerala, the 2nd wave of the pandemic
B.A.No.3359 of 2021
..4..
is creating lot of problems and even the day-to-day life of the
citizens are affected. Everyday, about 25,000 people are
tested positive with COVID-19. In such circumstances, this
Court has to consider this fact also while considering bail
applications. The life is more important than anything.
Therefore, I am considering this bail application based on the
above pandemic situation.
7. 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.
These happened during the 1st wave of COVID-19 season.
8. 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
B.A.No.3359 of 2021
..5..
is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the
accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
9. 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:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within three weeks from today and
shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be
released on bail on his 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;
3. 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
B.A.No.3359 of 2021
..6..
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the Court;
5. The Petitioner shall not commit any offence
similar to the offence alleged in this case.
6. 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;
7. 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ds 07.05.2021
