Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to the petitioners with stringent ...

Arun Krishnan and Thankam v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No. 7534 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
  • bench_type
Judgment Date
2020-11-19
Court Decision / Holding
The Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) petitioners to appear before the Investigation Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) if arrest is contemplated, petitioners shall execute bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; (3) petitioners to appear for interrogation as required and to cooperate with the investigation; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court; (5) petitioners shall not commit a like offence; (6) petitioners shall comply with the State and Central Government COVID-19 social distancing guidelines; (7) the jurisdictional Court may cancel bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Arun Krishnan
  • Thankam

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Nikhel K GOPINATH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Arun Krishnan and Thankam, accused in Crime No.567/2020 of Kakkur Police Station, seek bail under section 438 CrPC in a case registered for offences punishable under sections 406 and 498A read with section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges mental and physical harassment of the defacto complainant within a live matrimonial relationship. The petitioners contend that the accusations are unfounded and that the matrimonial relationship continues; they express willingness to abide by stringent conditions if granted bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but indicates that stringent conditions may be imposed if bail is granted. After hearing both sides, the High Court of Kerala (Single Judge P. V. Kunhikrishnan) notes the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and also cites social distancing directives arising from the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize prison populations. The court does not adjudicate on merits but weighs the circumstances to exercise latitude in bail in matrimonial offences, especially during a public health crisis. The bail is ultimately allowed subject to stringent conditions: appearance before the IO within ten days, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, cooperation with the investigation, no travel abroad without permission, no further offence, and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines, with the course of action reserved for violation of conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 406 IPCSection 498A IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the alleged offences are matrimonial in nature, the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant persists, and the allegations are not correct; they are willing to abide by stringent conditions if bail is granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail but suggested imposing stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and to prevent misuse, especially given the gravity of the matrimonial offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In PrisonsSuo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020PositiveCited to justify social distancing norms and measures to reduce prison population in the wake of COVID-19.
W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020PositiveCited as authority for salutary directions issued by a Full Bench of this Court to minimize prison population during the pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveCited to underscore the bail principle that the liberty of an accused is the default presumption and bail is the rule, with jail as the exception.

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 Arun Krishnan and Thankam v. State of Kerala 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** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7534 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.567/2020 OF Kakkur Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**||**ARUN KRISHNAN**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 32 YEARS**| |||**AYSWARIYA KRISHNA, ASSARIKKAL HOUSE, PALATH P.O,**| |||**KOZHIKODE DISTRICT**| |||**673611**| |**2**||**THANKAM**| |||**AGED 54 YEARS**| |||**AYSWARIYA KRISHNA, ASSARIKKAL HOUSE, PALATH PO,**| |||**KOZHIKODE DISTRICT**| |||**673611**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.NIKHEL K GOPINATH**| |**RESPONDENT**<br>**:**||| |||**STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| |||**682031**| |||**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| B.A.No. 7534 OF 2020 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.JAYASURYA.B, SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7534 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.7534 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] 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. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.567/2020 of Kakkur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the B.A.No. 7534 OF 2020 4 learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offences. The matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but the Public Prosecutor 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. Admittedly, the marital relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence B.A.No. 7534 OF 2020 5 even now. The allegation against the petitioners is that there is matrimonial cruelty. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and 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 COVID19 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** B.A.No. 7534 OF 2020 6 **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 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. B.A.No. 7534 OF 2020 7 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 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. 7534 OF 2020 8 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. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-