Aji and Jayachandran v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6710 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1677/2020 OF Sooranadu Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 AJI AGED 46 YEARS POIKAYIL VEEDU, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-690540** **2 JAYACHANDRAN AGED 50 YEARS CHANJOOTTIL THEKKATHIL, PERUVELIKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-690521** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA SMT.ANJANA KANNATH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6710 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6710 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd ] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1677 of 2020 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 354 r/w. Section 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7.10.2020 at about 6.30 pm, when the de facto complainant questioned the construction of a compound wall, the petitioners used filthy language against the de facto complainant and his wife and beaten the de facto complainant with a stick on his left hand. It is also alleged that the 1[st] accused pull down the wife of the de facto complainant and torned her blouse by using foul B.A.No.6710 of 2020 3 language and thereby outraged her modesty. The motive alleged is that the de facto complainant obtained a stay from the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcotta against construction in the property of the 1[st] accused. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the 1[st] petitioner is working as Peon in BEVCO. The 2[nd] petitioner is working as an Attender at a Government UP School. The counsel submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioners just to see that the petitioners are suspended from service. The counsel submitted that the petitioners submitted Annexure-2 complaint before the District Police Authorities making certain allegation against one Omanakuttan and against the Station House Officer of the Sooranadu Police Station. The counsel submitted that the motive alleged in this case is false because there is no stay B.A.No.6710 of 2020 4 order passed by the civil court. The counsel produced Annexure-A1, an order passed by the civil court by which the violation petition is also dismissed. The counsel also submitted that there is no serious injury sustained to the de facto complainant and Annexure-A3 is the wound certificate. The counsel submitted that in Annexure-A3 wound certificate there is no grievous hurt to the de facto complainant. 6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor produced two reports from the Investigating Officer in this case. In the second report dated 2.11.2020, the Investigating Officer specifically denied each and every contentions raised by the petitioner in the bail application. The Investigating Officer says that Annexure-A2 complaint was subsequently closed by the District Police Chief. The Investigating Officer also says that there is fracture to the de facto complainant which was subsequently detected. A certificate from the doctor was also produced along with the report. In the report it is also stated that the petitioner B.A.No.6710 of 2020 5 committed serious offences. It is also stated in paragraph 4 of the report that the life of the victim is in danger and his physical condition is weak. 7. I perused the bail application and all the reports submitted by the investigating officer in this case. Admittedly, there is some boundary dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Some civil disputes are pending between the parties. The petitioners are government servants. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that there is some antecedents alleged against the petitioner. The antecedents reported in paragraph 5 of the report includes the present case. I don't know how can the investigating officer submit a report before the Court saying that criminal antecedents includes the present case. Anyway, the other cases are registered in 2011 and 2018. All are registered with minor offences. B.A.No.6710 of 2020 6 9. 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. 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 of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following B.A.No.6710 of 2020 7 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) 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 him from B.A.No.6710 of 2020 8 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 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. The petitioner shall not enter the residential house of the de facto complainant. 8. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am for a period of one month from today. B.A.No.6710 of 2020 9 9. 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** cms