Althaf, Jamheed, Musfer, and Najeem Sarvan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-21
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed on stringent conditions: petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days; after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties each; petitioners to appear as required, cooperate with investigation, not induce or threaten witnesses, not leave India without court permission, and to abide by social distancing guidelines as per Covid-19 directives; and the jurisdictional court may cancel bail for violation of any condition.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ALTHAF
JAMSHEED
MUSAFER
NAJEEM SARVAN

Respondents

KERALA 682031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. T. Sheejish

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by four petitioners (Althaf, Jamheed, Musfer, and Najeem Sarvan) in Crime No. 848/2020 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram. The respondents include the State of Kerala. The petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 379, 323, 294(b) and 354 IPC. The prosecution claims that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant, robbed a gold chain, and outraged modesty. The counsel for petitioners contends that the case is a false implication—alleging that complaints against a relative Nishal and neighbours precede this case; the present complaint dated 10.8.2020 for alleged acts on 22.6.2020 is asserted as a false and manufactured case. The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail, suggesting stringent conditions if granted. The judge notes the delay in filing the complaint but emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing established bail jurisprudence. In light of the Covid-19 context, the court also references Supreme Court directives and a Kerala High Court Full Bench directive to minimize prison populations. After considering the allegations, evidence and social-distancing concerns, the court grants bail with stringent conditions: the petitioners must appear before the IO within ten days for interrogation; post bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; abide by investigation and court directions; not leave India; and comply with Covid-19 guidelines.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 379, 323, 294(b), 354 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the case is a false implication, pointing to earlier complaints against a relation (Nishal) and neighbours; they argued they are ready to comply with any conditions and that there is a delay in filing the complaint which may indicate mala fide action.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail but indicated willingness to consider stringent conditions if bail is granted, balancing fair trial and potential risk.

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 by the Court to justify social distancing norms and measures in prisons, reinforcing the need for precautions during the pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Cited for directions issued to minimize the number of inmates in prisons amid the pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the court's approach.

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 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5059 OF 2020 CRIME NO./0 OF Tirur Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONERs/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**ALTHAF**| |---|---| ||**AGED 43 YEARS**| ||**KUTHUBUDEEN, KADAVATH HOUSE, B.P ANGADI, TIRUR,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| ||**676105**| |**2**|**JAMSHEED**| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**S/O. UMMARKUTTY, KARIMBANAKAL HOUSE, VENGALUR P.O,**| ||**TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT**| ||**676102**| |**3**|**MUSAFER**| ||**AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**S/O. YAHUTTY, PAININGAL HOUSE, ALATHIYUR P.O, TIRUR,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| ||**676102**| |**4**|**NAJEEM SARVAN**| ||**AGED 14 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ABBAS, MANGATTIRI P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| ||**676102**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH**| B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 2 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **KERALA 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.GP.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No. 5059 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 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 accused in Crime No.848 of 2020 of Tirur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 379, 323, 294(b) and 354 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant, committed theft of a gold chain and outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant. B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 4 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaints were filed against one Nishal which is produced as Annexure A1, A5 and A6. The defacto complainant is a close relative of the above Nishal. The complaints are filed by the other neighbours also against the above Nishal. Now the defacto complainant filed the present complaint on 10.8.2020 alleging that the petitioners committed the offences on 22.6.2020. This itself shows that this is a false case foisted by the defacto complainant. According to the counsel, the complaint produced in the Bail Application are filed before the present complaint. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 5 opposed the bail application submitted that, if this Court is granting them bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the alleged incident happened on 22.6.2020. The present case is registered on 10.8.2020. The petitioners have got a definite case about false implication. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The only nonbailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 354 and 379 of the IPC. There is a long delay in filing the complaint. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, 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-** B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 6 **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),** 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 B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 7 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. 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 B.A.No.5959 OF 2020 8 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/-+