Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to the petitioners on stringent co...

ABEESH HASAN, ARIFA BEEVI, BANAZEER HASSAN, SHEMI BAN, NAHAS v. STATE OF KERALA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHALUMOOD POLICE STATION

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.8124 of 2020
Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
Judgment Date
2020-12-14
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) post-interrogation, if arrest is contemplated, petitioners shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties for equal amount; (3) petitioners shall appear for further interrogation as required and shall not induce or threaten witnesses; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; (5) petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offences alleged; (6) petitioners shall strictly follow social distancing guidelines; (7) violation of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abeesh Hasan
  • Arifa Beevi
  • Banazeer Hassan
  • Shemi Ban
  • Nahas

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
  • The Station House Officer, Anchalumood Police Station, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Raj Carolin V.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor
  • • Renjith T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns five accused in Crime No. 224 of 2020 from Anchalumoodu Police Station, Kollam, seeking relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, Abeesh Hasan, Arifa Beevi, Banazeer Hassan, Shemi Ban and Nahas, are charged with multiple offences including offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 313, 323, 324, 420, 405, 406 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges sustained mental and physical harassment of the defacto complainant and involvement in offences under Sections 313 and 420 IPC. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute and ongoing proceedings before a Family Court; the matrimonial relationship with the complainant is stated to be in existence. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but indicated willingness to accept stringent conditions. The court noted that the case is based on a private complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that matrimonial disputes exist between the first petitioner and the complainant. Citing the COVID-19 pandemic and existing Supreme Court and High Court directives, the court proceeded to consider bail with safeguards. Ultimately, bail was allowed on stringent conditions to balance fair trial with public health concerns, subject to compliance with conditions and possible cancellation on violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Sections 498A, 354, 313, 323, 324, 420, 405, 406, 294(b) r/w Section 34 IPCSection 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that there is an ongoing matrimonial dispute with the defacto complainant and that the relationship between the first petitioner and the complainant is still in existence. They argue that the alleged offences are matrimonial in nature and there are ongoing proceedings in the Family Court, which should weigh in favor of bail with appropriate conditions to safeguard fair trial. The counsel submits that stringent conditions can mitigate risks, including cooperation with investigation and adherence to social distancing norms in prison facilities.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, via the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail but states willingness to grant it on stringent conditions if necessary. It is highlighted that the case arises on a private complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is a suggestion that the petitioners be placed under strict supervision and adhere to conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering with witnesses.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons caseSuo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020PositiveCited to justify social distancing measures and guidelines in prisons in the pandemic context.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveUsed to support the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the court’s approach to grant bail with conditions.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020PositiveFull Bench directions cited for minimizing prison populations and related safeguards in the COVID-19 context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ABEESH HASAN, ARIFA BEEVI, BANAZEER HASSAN, SHEMI BAN, NAHAS v. STATE OF KERALA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHALUMOOD POLICE STATION and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2020 CRIME NO.224/2020 OF Anchalummoodu Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**ABEESH HASAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**SON OF ASANARUKUTTY, FATHIMA MANZIL, KOTTAKKAKOM**| ||**CHERRY, TRIKADAVOOR VILLAGE, ANCHALUMOOD PO, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT-KOLLAM**| ||**PIN-691601**| |**2**|**ARIFA BEEVI**| ||**AGED 70 YEARS**| ||**WIFE OF ASANARUKUTTY, FANTHIMA MANZIL, KOTTAKKAKOM**| ||**CHERRY, TRIKADAVOOR VILLAGE, ANCHALUMOOD PO, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT.-KOLLAM**| ||**PIN-691601**| |**3**|**BANAZEER HASSAN**| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**D/O ASANRAUKUTTY, KUTTIVILA VEEDU, KANJIRAMKUZHY,**| ||**KANJAVELY PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT**| ||**PIN-691602**| |**4**|**SHEMI BAN**| ||**AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**W/O ANWAR SADATH, ASST MANAGER, CO OPERATIVE BANK,**| ||**CHARUMOOD PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**| ||**PIN-690505**| |**5**|**NAHAS**| ||**AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**KUTTIVILA VEEDU, KANJIRAMKUZHY, KANJAVELI PO, KOLLAM**| ||**DISTRICT**| ||**PIN-691602**| ||**BY ADV. SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.**| B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 2 ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER AGED 35 YEARS ANCHALUMOOD POLICE STATION, ANCHALUMOOD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-691601** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.8124 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.224/2020 of Anchalummoodu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 354, 313, 323,324, 420, 405, 406, 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners committed the offences under Sections 313 and 420 IPC. B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 4 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offences. The counsel also submitted that some litigations are pending before the Family Court. The counsel submitted that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. 6. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional magistrate which was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 5 application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 8. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the case is registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional magistrate which was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, there are matrimonial dispute pending between first petitioner and the defacto complainant. The matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence even now. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and I think, this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 9. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 6 spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Re: Contagion of COVID19 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. 10. 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. 11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 7 ## of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs,.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. B.A.No. 8124 OF 2020 8 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 6. The petitioners 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 petitioners, 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** al/-