Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to the petitioner Amal Sha under s...

Amal Sha v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.652 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2020-08-24
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, release on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (3) the petitioner shall appear as required and cooperate with the investigation; (4) not to leave India without permission; (5) shall not commit a similar offence; (6) shall abide by social distancing guidelines in view of COVID-19; and (7) failure to comply may result in cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to the petitioner Amal Sha under stringent conditions as described in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Amal Sha

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Commissioner of Police, Cochin City Police
  • Station House Officer, Kalamassery Police Station
  • Station House Officer, Town North Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Lathesh Sebastian (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor (Renjith T.R.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Amal Sha, aged 20, in connection with Crime No. 6 of 2020 at Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam District. The case originated under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act and was later converted to offences under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC for alleged rape of a girl on 11.10.2019 in Kripa Annex, Ernakulam North, with accused Nos. 2 to 4 said to be involved. The petitioner contends the relationship with the victim was consensual and that the dispute arose from a family dispute; affidavits by the defacto complainant (father-in-law) and the victim indicate that the marriage between petitioner and victim is already decided and the victim has no objection to quashing the proceedings. The petitioner argues arrest would cause injustice and seeks bail with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposing bail submits the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement prima facie supports the offence. After hearing, the court grants bail with stringent conditions, while noting that social distancing norms and COVID-19 guidelines warrant caution in prison settings. The judgment relies on higher court directives to minimize inmate populations. The order reflects a balance between fair trial and public health considerations, with conditions including appearance, bond, no travel, compliance with distancing guidelines, and non-commission of similar offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 57 of Kerala Police ActSection 376 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that there was a love relationship with the victim and a possible marriage, supported by affidavits from the defacto complainant and the victim indicating no objection to quashing the proceedings; he argued that arrest could be unjust and that he is prepared to cooperate with investigations, including waiting for the victim's statement. It was urged that bail with stringent conditions would safeguard fair trial and that COVID-19 social distancing directives justify a measured release.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail, noting the Section 164 CrPC statement by the victim which prima facie supports the offences; the seriousness of the alleged rape and the need to ensure a fair trial were emphasized, with a suggestion that if bail is granted, stringent conditions are essential to prevent interference with witnesses and the investigation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons caseSuo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020PositiveCited to justify social distancing norms and prison guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020PositiveFull Bench directions for minimizing inmate populations in prisons referenced to support the court's approach.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveRecognized bail as the default rule and jail as the exception, guiding the court's jurisprudence on bail.

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 Amal Sha v. State of Kerala & Others 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 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.652 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 82/2020 DATED 22-01-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM** **CRIME NO.6/2020 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **AMAL SHA AGED 20 YEARS S/O. SHAJI, PUNNAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ADIMALY P.O, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERLA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM 682 031**| |**2**|**COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,**| ||**COCHIN CITY POLICE, ERNAKULAM 682 031**| |**3**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION,**| ||**ERNAKULAM 682 021**| |**4**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,**| ||**ERNAKULAM 682 018**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 652 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ================== B.A.No. 652 of 2020 ================== Dated this the 24[th] 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. The petitioner is the accused in crime No. 6 of 2020 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam District. The above case is originally registered under Section 57 of Kerla Police Act. Subsequently converted as an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner committed rape on the victim in room No. 8 of Kripa Annex, Ernakulam North at 5 p.m. on 11.10.2019, against her consent with the help of accused Nos. 2 to 4 and B.A.No. 652 of 2020 3 thereby committed the offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner and the victim girl were in love. The case is registered due to a misunderstanding of the father-in-law of the victim girl. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the father-in-law of the victim girl, who is the defacto complainant in this case filed an affidavit before this Court saying that, the marriage of petitioner and the victim girl is already decided. Annexure-A6 is the affidavit. The victim girl is also filed an affidavit as Annexure-A5, in which she says that, she has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that, Annexures A5 & A6 are the copy of the affidavit of the father-in-law and the victim in this case. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is taking steps to quash the proceedings. He is B.A.No. 652 of 2020 4 waiting for a statement of the victim. As per Annexure-A7 lower court dismissed the application for getting the statement. Subsequently, as per Annexure-A8, this Court directed to issue the statement to the petitioner. Immediately after getting the statement of the victim, the petitioner will file a petition to quash the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the mean while, if the petitioner is arrested, it will be on injustice. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the bail application, submitted that, if this Court grant him bail stringent conditions may be imposed. He submitted that, the victim girl gave a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in which the offence is made out _prima facie_ . 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there is a love affair between the petitioner B.A.No. 652 of 2020 5 and the victim girl. Petitioner produced a copy of the affidavit of the defacto complainant and the victim girl, saying that, the petitioner is going to marry the victim girl. Marriage will not wipe off the offence. But considering the facts and circumstances of this 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),**_ after B.A.No. 652 of 2020 6 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, 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;_ B.A.No. 652 of 2020 7 _3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;_ _6. The petitioner 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_ B.A.No. 652 of 2020 8 ## _pandemic._ If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, 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