ARUN RAMESH R V, A RAMESH, SANTHEEV M S, SREENU B, NANDU B K, SREERAJ M S v STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7299 OF 2020 CRIME NO.1809/2020 OF Palode Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** |**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**ARUN RAMESH R V**| |||**AGED 21 YEARS**| |||**S/O.RAMESH A.,**| |||**SREERAJA BHAVAN, VENKAVILA, IRICHAYAM P.O.,**| |||**NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**PIN-695561**| |**2**||**A RAMESH**| |||**S/O.APPUCHETTIYAR, AGED 54 YEARS,**| |||**SREERAJA BHAVAN, VENKAVILA, IRICHAYAM P.O.,**| |||**NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**PIN-695561**| |**3**||**SANTHEEV M S**| |||**AGED 34 YEARS**| |||**S/O.MOHANDAS,**| |||**SANTHI BHAVAN, CHIRAYATHU, KAIMANAM,**| |||**PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**PIN-695018**| |**4**||**SREENU B**| |||**AGED 26 YEARS**| |||**S/O.BALACHANDRAN,**| |||**SREENIVAS, KUSARKODU, CHALACHERI, POOVATHUR P.O.,**| |||**NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**PIN-695561**| |**5**||**NANDU B K**| |||**AGED 23 YEARS**| |||**S/O.BABU,**| |||**PUTHUKAVIL VEEDU, KOLLAMKONAM, PAZHAKUTTY P.O.,**| |||**ANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**PIN-695561**| B.A.No.7299 of 2020 2 **6 SREERAJ M S AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MANOHARAN NAIR, SREEVILASAM, KOLLAKKODE, VENKAVILA, PAZHAKUTTY P.O., ANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695561** **BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.7299 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7299 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1809 of 2020 of Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 342, 354 r/w. Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that now the case is transferred to Nedumangad Police Station and the case is re-registered as Crime No.4707 of 2020. 3. The prosecution case is that on 29.8.2020, the de facto complainant came to the house of the 1[st] petitioner questioning about the defamatory statements made by him. At that time, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant B.A.No.7299 of 2020 4 assaulted her and abused her with filthy languages and also outraged her modesty. This is the sum and substance of the allegation. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence alleged in this case is under Section 354 IPC. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that the de facto complainant came to the house of the 1[st] petitioner and created trouble. That itself shows 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 conceded that the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 354 IPC. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. B.A.No.7299 of 2020 5 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 is under Section 354 IPC. Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. While considering a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, one of the question to be decided is whether custodial interrogation is necessary or not. In this case, I think custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. 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 B.A.No.7299 of 2020 6 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. 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 B.A.No.7299 of 2020 7 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 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. B.A.No.7299 of 2020 8 7. 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. 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** cms