High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-15Bail Granted with stringent conditions.

Akhil Sivakumar, Anjana Sivakumar and Prasana v. State of Kerala, Station House Officer Kundra Police Station, Kollam Rural and Arya S Subash

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.5426 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-15
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Akhil Sivakumar
Anjana Sivakumar
Prasana

Respondents

State of Kerala
State House Officer Kundra Police Station, Kollam Rural
Arya S Subash

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.M.KIRANLAL
• SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
• SRI.T.S.SARATH
• SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
• SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners Akhil Sivakumar, Anjana Sivakumar and Prasana filed Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC in Crime No. 2098/2020 of Kundra Police Station, Kollam Rural. The respondents are the State of Kerala and the Station House Officer, Kundra Police Station, with Arya S Subash named as an additional respondent. The prosecution case arises from matrimonial discord between the first petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, and the complainant. A previous matter (Crime No. 2054 of 2018) had been settled, but subsequent allegations of matrimonial harassment led to the current charges under sections 323 and 498A read with 34 IPC. The petitioners argued that the allegations are not correct: the first petitioner remains in a marital relationship with the de facto complainant, and the second and third petitioners are his sister and mother, respectively. They emphasized ongoing matrimonial ties and asserted the allegations were unfounded. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that, if bail were granted, stringent conditions could be imposed. After hearing, the court concluded that the circumstances warranted bail with stringent conditions, considering matrimonial ties and public health concerns during the Covid-19 pandemic. It relied on Supreme Court directions on prison contagion and observed bail as a rule with imprisonment as an exception. Accordingly, bail was allowed with conditions including appearance, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, non-absorption from India without court permission, prohibition on re-offending, adherence to social distancing guidelines, and potential cancellation of bail for non-compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains that the grant of bail is the rule and the accused has the opportunity of securing a fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the allegations are not correct. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant, the 2nd petitioner is the sister of the 1st petitioner, studying for M.Tech, and the 3rd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. There is a matrimonial dispute, yet the marital relationship between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant is claimed to be ongoing. They asserted the circumstances do not merit denial of bail and emphasized their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, subject to stringent conditions and Covid-19 safety measures.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, though he indicated that if bail were granted, stringent conditions might be imposed to ensure fair trial and prevent tampering with witnesses. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offences under sections 323 and 498A r/w 34 IPC and the need to safeguard the investigation.

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 prison containment measures; used to support the relevance of Covid-19 guidelines in the bail directions.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Quoted for the principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, supporting grant of bail.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of the Court’s recognition of Covid-19 related guidelines (social distancing) but not applied as a controlling ratio in the bail order.

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 Akhil Sivakumar, Anjana Sivakumar and Prasana v. State of Kerala, Station House Officer Kundra Police Station, Kollam Rural and Arya S Subash and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

B.A.No.5426 of 2020 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.5426 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.2098/2020 OF Kundara Police Station , Kollam** |**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**AKHIL SIVAKUMAR**| |||**AGED 30 YEARS**| |||**S/O SIVAKUMAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA,**| |||**PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM**| |||**691504**| |**2**||**ANJANA SIVAKUMAR**| |||**AGED 22 YEARS**| |||**D/O SIVAKUMAR**| |||**RESIDING AT: KRISHNAKRIPA,**| |||**PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM**| |||**691504**| |**3**||**PRASANA**| |||**AGED 53 YEARS**| |||**W/O SIVAKUMAR**| |||**RESIDING AT: KRISHNAKRIPA,**| |||**PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM**| |||**691504**| |||**BY ADVS.**| |||**SRI.M.KIRANLAL**| |||**SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN**| |||**SRI.T.S.SARATH**| |||**SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)**| |||**SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**| |||**KERALA, ERNAKULAM,**| |||**PIN-682031**| B.A.No.5426 of 2020 2 **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER AGED 30 YEARS KUNDRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-691504 3 ARYA S SUBASH AGED 27 YEARS D/O SUGANDHI, SREEPADAM, MANIYAR, PUNALUR, KUNDRA KOLLAM, PIN- 691504** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.5426 of 2020 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15[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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.2098 of 2020 of Kundra Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Sections 323 and 498A r/w.34 IPC. 3.The prosecution case is that the 1[st] petitioner married the de facto complainant. There was some matrimonial dispute which resulted in the registration of Crime No.2054 of 2018. That matter was settled. Subsequently the 1[st] petitioner and the de facto complainant were residing together. Thereafter again there was matrimonial harassment from the side of the petitioners. Hence the present case is registered. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.5426 of 2020 4 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that the 1[st] petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. 2[nd] petitioner is the sister of the 1[st] petitioner who is studying for M.Tech. 3[rd] petitioner is the mother of the 1[st] petitioner. The counsel submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute between the 1[st] petitioner and the de facto complainant. The counsel submitted that the marital relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the de facto complainant are in existence even now. 6. The Public Prosecutor eventhough opposed the bail application submitted that if this Court grant bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be granted. 7.After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there is matrimonial dispute between the 1[st] petitioner and the de facto complainant. The marital relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the de facto complainant are in existence even now. B.A.No.5426 of 2020 5 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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 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. B.A.No.5426 of 2020 6 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 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 B.A.No.5426 of 2020 7 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. 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional B.A.No.5426 of 2020 8 Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. SD/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms