High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted

B. A. No. 2530 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:B. A. No. 2530 of 2020
Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2020-04-28
Court Decision / Holding
Bail application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released under specified conditions, including address and surety details, a bond, Saturday appearances until final report, prohibition from entering the police jurisdiction till final report, no tampering with evidence, no new offences, and no leaving Kerala without court permission; with power to cancel bail for violations.
Final Disposition
Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shri Jaleel

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Vazhikadavu Police Station, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P Venogopal

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Ajith Murali
  • • Public Prosecutor (State of Kerala)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail application concerns Shri Jaleel, the first accused in Crime No. 62/2020 of Vazhikadavu Police Station, Malappuram District. He faces offences under IPC Sections 451, 354, 354A(i)(ii)(iv), 354D(i) read with Sec. 34, the PoCSO Act (Sec. 10 read with 9(l); Sec. 12 read with 11(i); Sec. 17 read with 16), and Sec. 75 of the JJ Act. Arrested on 19 February 2020, he moved for bail under Sec. 439 CrPC after about 70 days in custody, arguing innocence and entitlement to statutory bail under Sec. 167(2). The prosecution opposed bail, noting Covid-19 constraints on police tests and proposing stringent conditions if released, including restricted territorial limits. The court relies on Supreme Court authorities that bail is the rule and jail an exception, alongside COVID-19 prison-decongestion directions. Given the facts, including prolonged custody and statutory entitlement, the court grants bail with conditions: the petitioner shall disclose permanent address and proposed sureties, file a bail bond; appear for questioning on Saturdays until final report; not enter the jurisdiction of Vazhikadavu Police till final report; not tamper with evidence; not commit offences; not leave Kerala without permission; and the SHO may move to cancel bail if violated. This order balances personal liberty with investigation and public-health considerations during the pandemic.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSection 167(2) of CrPCSection 451 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 354A(i)(ii)(iv) IPCSection 354D(i) IPC read with Section 34 IPCSection 10 read with Section 9(l) of PoCSO ActSection 12 read with Section 11(i) of PoCSO ActSection 17 read with Section 16 of PoCSO ActSection 75 of the JJ Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence, claims the allegations are false, and seeks statutory bail under Sec.167(2) CrPC after about 70 days in custody. He relies on established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail an exception, especially in the COVID-19 context, and requests conditional bail with monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure presence and prevent tampering until final report.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail on grounds of serious offences involving a minor and risk of interference with witnesses. It concedes COVID-19 constraints but seeks release only under stringent terms, including restrictions within the jurisdiction, regular appearances, and safeguards to ensure the victim’s safety and the integrity of the investigation, citing prevailing Supreme Court principles to guide bail during the pandemic.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI2012 (1) SCC 40PositiveUsed to substantiate the proposition that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India2018 (11) SCC 1PositiveSupports the bail-oriented approach and discussion on fundamental rights during pre-trial detention.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab[(1980) 2 SCC 565]PositiveCited as part of the bail jurisprudence endorsing bail as a rule.
P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 SCC Online SC 1549PositiveFortifies the bail principle in a modern context, reinforcing the rule-to-jail exception doctrine.
In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020)Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020PositiveUsed to justify decongestion and release considerations during the pandemic.

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 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020 /8TH VAISAKHA, 1942 ## BAIL APPL.NO. 2530 OF 2020 CRIME NO 62/2020 OF VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ## PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHRI.JALEEL AGED 42 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED MANHAKANDAN VEEDU, PALLIPPADI PALEMADU-PO, EDAKKARA AMSOM NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. P VENOGOPAL ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN: 682 031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION, VAZHIKADAVU MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN:679 333 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.04.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 ## **ORDER** This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.62/2020 of Vazhikadavu Police Station. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Secs. 451, 354, 354A(i)(ii)(iv), 354D(i) read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs 10 read with 9(l), 12 read with 11(i), 17 read with 16 of the PoCSO Act and Sec.75 of the JJ Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: during the period between 25.12.2019 and 16.2.2020, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the victim, a minor 16 years old girl, outraged her modesty, committed aggravated sexual assault and harrased the victim. The second accused, the mother of the victim, abetted the petitioner to commit the above offences. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 19.2.2020. His application for bail was dismissed by the Special Court for the trial of offences against Children (Additional Sessions 3 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 Court-I) Manjeri, by its order dated 24.4.2020 in Crl M.C No.89/2020. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor via video-conferencing. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The above crime is falsely foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 70 days. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Sec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Police is unable to conduct the statutory tests contemplated under law. The petitioner, even if granted bail, may be only on stringent conditions, i.e, the petitioner may not be permitted to enter the jurisdictional limits of Vazhikadavu Police station till the final report is filed. 4 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** [2012 (1) SCC 40] held as follows: "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution". 9. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India** [2018 (11) SCC 1] after going back to the days of the Magna Carta and after referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] has reiterated the same view in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra).** Again, in P **.Chidamabram v. Directorate of Enforcement** [(2019) SCC Online SC 1549] the above proposition has been fortified. 10. After the outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic in the country, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020) 5 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 observed that the issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern. The State Governments were directed to take adequate measures to de-congest the prisons. Following the above direction, the Home Department, Government of Kerala has promulgated order dated 25.03.2020, inter alia, directing the release of under-trial prisoners alleged to have committed offences punishable with punishment for seven years or less. Later, a Full Bench of this Court by order dated 25.03.20202 in W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 (Suo Motu), has issued directions to de-congest the prisons in the State, keeping in mind the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner has been in incarceration for the last 70 days; that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Sec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that the petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary; the legal proposition laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions; the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 6 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 and a Full Bench of this Court to decongest prisons in view of Covid-19 pandemic, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 12. In the result this bail application is allowed, on the following conditions:- (i) Due to the present National lock-down and the closure of Courts, the Jail Superintendent, where the petitioner is incarcerated, is directed to release the petitioner on him furnishing his permanent address and phone number and the addresses and phone numbers of his proposed sureties/immediate relatives. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking to the Jail Superintendent that he and his sureties will execute the bail bond before the jurisdictional Court within one week of its reopening. The Jail Superintendent after ensuring the compliance of the above conditions, shall release the petitioner to the Station House Officer of the Police Station where the crime has 7 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 been registered, who shall after noting down the above details, release the petitioner. The Investigating Officer shall keep a close vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall within one week from the re-opening of the jurisdictional Court, if not already re-opened, execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10.00 a.m and 11 a.m till final report is filed. (iv) The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of the Vazhikadavu Police Station till the final report is filed. (v) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in the case, in any manner, whatsoever. (vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence 8 B. A. No. 2530 of 2020 while on bail. (vii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. (viii) Needless to mention that, if the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the Station House Officer shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court and file appropriate application seeking for cancellation of the bail. **Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE** sks/28.4.2020