High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-14The bail application is allowed; bail granted t...

Bail Application No. 3751 of 2020 (Jose P.D., Lourdh Jose and Jancy Rani v. State of Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-10-14
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application is allowed on stringent conditions with directions: (1) petitioners to appear before Investigating Officer within 10 days for interrogation; (2) if arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each; (3) petitioners to cooperate and not attempt to influence witnesses; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; (5) shall not commit similar offences; (6) shall abide by social distancing and COVID-19 guidelines; (7) court may cancel bail if conditions are violated.
Final Disposition: The bail application is allowed; bail granted to the petitioners under stringent conditions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jose P.D.
Lourdh Jose
Jancy Rani

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Eben Mathew
• Sri. P. Rohit Premandan Shenoy
• Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC in the Kerala High Court by Jose P.D., Lourdh Jose, and Jancy Rani, accused in Narakkal Police Station Crime No. 839/2020. The FIR alleges matrimonial cruelty and harassment by the first petitioner, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, and that the first petitioner attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant. The petitioners contend that a matrimonial dispute exists between the defacto complainant and her husband, with several related proceedings, and that the 354 IPC charge was added to strengthen the case, but no incident of outraging modesty occurred. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, suggesting stringent conditions if granted. The court observed that the matrimonial relationship between the first accused and the defacto complainant continues, which weighs in favor of bail. It noted the well-established principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement and general bail jurisprudence. It also considered Covid-19 related guidelines and social distancing norms as relevant to imprisonment. The judge granted bail with stringent conditions: the petitioners must appear for interrogation within 10 days; if arrest is contemplated, they must furnish bonds of Rs 50,000 with two sureties; they must not leave India; must comply with guidelines; and the court retained power to cancel bail for any violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 498A IPCSection 354 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend there is a matrimonial dispute between the defacto complainant and her husband, with several litigation proceedings, and that the 354 IPC charge was added to strengthen the case; no incident of outraging modesty occurred. They submit that continued matrimonial relations exist between the complainant and the first accused, and that mere allegations should not translate into detention; bail should be allowed with stringent conditions to ensure fair investigation and trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution, while opposing outright bail, argues that bail may be granted under stringent conditions if warranted, given the seriousness of the allegations under 498A IPC and 354 read with 34 IPC. They emphasize the need to preserve the investigation’s integrity and public interest, while recognizing the ongoing matrimonial context.

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	Mentioned Only	Cited to invoke COVID-19 related directives for minimizing prison population; used as supportive context rather than a binding precedent on bail.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited for background of social distancing and related directives; no direct application of its holdings on bail.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, supporting grant of bail under stringent conditions.

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 Bail Application No. 3751 of 2020 (Jose P.D., Lourdh Jose and Jancy Rani 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.3751 OF 2020** **CRIME NO./2020 OF Narakkal Police Station , Ernakulam** |**PETITIONER/ACCUSED**<br>**:**|**PETITIONER/ACCUSED**<br>**:**| |---|---| |**1**|**JOSE P.D.**| ||**AGED 53 YEARS**| ||**S/O.DEVASSY, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJARACKAL P.O.,**| ||**KOCHI-682 505.**| ||**682505**| |**2**|**LOURDH JOSE,**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**W/O.JOSE.P.D., PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJARACKAL P.O.,**| ||**KOCHI-682 505.**| |**3**|**JANCY RANI,**| ||**AGED 19 YEARS**| ||**D/O.JOSE.P.D., PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJARACKAL P.O.,**| ||**KOCHI-682 505.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.EBIN MATHEW**| ||**SRI.P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY**| ||**SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY**| B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 2 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER NARAKKAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 682031 2 XXX XX, PIN-682 505.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** -------------------------------- B.A.No.3751 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 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.839 of 2020 of Narackal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. There is allegation against the first petitioner who is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant that he tried to outrage the modesty of B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 4 the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute pending between the defacto complainant and her husband. The petitioners are the father, mother and sister of the first accused. The counsel submitted that several litigations are pending between the husband and the defacto complainant. It is a matrimonial offence. The counsel submitted that Section 354 IPC is alleged only to strengthen the case of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that no such incident happened as alleged by the defacto complainant. 6. The Public Prosecutor even though opposed the bail application 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. ## B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 5 Admittedly, the matrimonial relationship between the defacto complainant and her husband are even now in existence. Petitioners are the father, mother and sister of the first accused who is the husband of the defacto complainant. The allegation in the F.I. statement is matrimonial cruelty. I don't want to make any observation about the merits of the case. It is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the matrimonial relationship between the first accused and defacto complainant is even now in existence, 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 ## B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 6 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 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 ## B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 7 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 cooperate 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. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court B.A.No. 3751 OF 2020 8 can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-