Akhil and others v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Punalur Police Station

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-18
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions as detailed in the order.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Akhil
Muhammad Rafi
Salim U.
Mubeen
Riyas R.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Station House Officer, Punalur Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manu Ramachandran
• M. Kiranlal
• T. S. Sarath
• R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• Sameer M. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC (B.A. No. 5525 of 2020) by five petitioners — Akhil, Muhammad Rafi, Salim U., Mubeen and Riyas R. — in crime No. 1984/2020 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam District. The petitioners are charged with offences including 143, 144, 147, 148, 294(b), 451, 354, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners joined an unlawful assembly, attacked the defacto complainant, and outraged the modesty of his wife. The petitioners contend they did not commit the offences and assert that the only non-bailable offence is under Section 354 IPC, whose ingredients are not established; they express willingness to abide by stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail but indicated that stringent conditions could be imposed if bail were granted. After hearing, the court finds merit to grant bail with stringent conditions, while noting the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and following directions of the Supreme Court and this Court to minimize prison populations. The order cites social distancing and related guidelines, and provides conditions: appearance before IO within ten days; bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; continued cooperation with investigation; restricted travel; no recurrence of similar offences; compliance with Covid-19 norms. The judgment reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and records the applicable guidelines as a framework for the grant of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 143 IPCSection 144 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 451 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that they did not commit the offences alleged; the only non-bailable offence cited is under Section 354 IPC, whose ingredients are not made out; they offered to comply with all reasonable bail conditions and to cooperate with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution opposed unrestricted bail but indicated that if bail is granted, it should be subject to stringent conditions; the offence is serious and requires careful investigation; the court should consider COVID-19 guidelines in granting bail.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing and other directives to minimize prison populations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P.(C) No. 9400 of 2020	Positive	Referenced to support salutary directions issued by this Court regarding COVID-19 prison guidelines.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reaffirm the basic bail jurisprudence: bail as the rule, jail as the exception.

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** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 27TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5525 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1984/2020 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**AKHIL**| |---|---| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**SON OF THULASEEDHARAN,**| ||**AKHIL BHAVAN, VENCHEMPU P.O,**| ||**KARAVALOOR VILLAGE**| ||**KOLLAM - 691333**| |**2**|**MUHAMMAD RAFI**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**SON OF RAHEEM,**| ||**RESIDING AT CHAVARA PADINJATTINKARA,**| ||**PODIYATTUVILA,**| ||**EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE**| ||**PIN : 691532**| |**3**|**SALIM U.**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**SON OF UMMER,**| ||**MAJIRA MANZIL,**| ||**VENCHENMPU P.O,**| ||**KARAVALOOR VILLAGE**| ||**KOLLAM - 691333**| |**4**|**MUBEEN**| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**SON OF NAJEEM,**| ||**AMEN MANZIL,**| ||**VENCHEMPU P.O,**| ||**KARAVALOOR VILLAGE**| ||**KOLLAM - 691333**| |**5**|**RIYAS R.**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**SON OF ABDUL RASHEED,**| ||**KALIKODE CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,**| ||**VENCHEMPU P.O,**| ||**KARAVALOOR VILLAGE**| ||**KOLLAM - 691333**| B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 2 **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**ERNAKULAM 682031**| |**2**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION**| ||**POLICE STATION OF PUNALUR,**| ||**PUNALUR P.O,**| ||**KOLLAM -691532**| ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ================== B.A.No. 5525 of 2020** **================== Dated this the 18[th] day of September, 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. 1984/2020 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 294 (b), 451, 354, 323, 324 and 506 (ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners found themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that, the petitioner outraged the modesty of the wife of the B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 4 defacto complainant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have not committed the offences alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC is not made out in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the bail application, submitted that, if this Court is granting bail stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 5 is under Section 354 of IPC. Whether the offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. 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. 9. 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),**_ B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 6 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. 10. 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 petitioners shall appear before the_ _Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;_ _2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes 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_ B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 7 _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 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;_ _4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The 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._ B.A.No. 5525 of 2020 8 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** LU