High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-23Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent ...

Bail Application No. 5648 of 2020 (B.A.No.5648/2020) vs State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.5648 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2020-09-23
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application allowed with stringent conditions as specified in the order.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions as outlined in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BIJU ALIAS JOSEPH M GEORGE
VINOD M GEORGE
PHILOMINA

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor
The Station House Officer, Chittarikkal Police Station, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu
• Smt. C.R. Saradamani

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (State of Kerala)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application under section 438 CrPC filed by three accused in Crime No. 329/2020 of Chittarikal Police Station, Kasaragod. The petitioners, Biju alias Joseph M George; Vinod M George; and Philomina (mother-in-law of the defacto complainant), are alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant on separate occasions on allegedly silly matters. The offences cited include Section 324 IPC (hurt), Section 354 IPC (outrage of modesty), Section 354A(1) & (2) IPC (assault or use of criminal force to outrage modesty with aggravating circumstances), and Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC (cruelty by husband’s relatives). The petitioners contend the dispute is a domestic matter and the allegations do not attract all the cited offences; they are ready to comply with stringent conditions if bail is granted. The State opposed bail, pointing to specific allegations against the petitioners. The court noted that the husband of the defacto complainant is not an accused and that the matter requires investigation; while acknowledging seriousness, the court invoked the general bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and reliance on COVID-19 related directives. The bail was granted with conditions: appearance before the IO within ten days; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; regular appearance; non-evading travel without court permission; compliance with guidelines on social distancing; surrender of passports; and potential cancellation if conditions are violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 324 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 354A(1) & (2) IPCSection 498A r/w Section 34 IPCSection 438 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the sole non-bailable offences alleged are under Section 498A and Section 354 IPC; even if the allegations are accepted, the offences are not attracted in this case. It is argued to be a domestic dispute exaggerated by the defacto complainant. The petitioners are ready to comply with stringent bail conditions and cooperate with the investigation, including appearing before the Investigating Officer and not leaving the country. They highlight that the husband of the defacto complainant is not an accused; there are two children to consider; the COVID-19 social distancing norms while in prison must be observed; the court should use bail to ensure a fair trial rather than incarceration at this stage.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, pointing to specific allegations against the petitioners and the involvement of offences under Sections 324, 354, 354A, and 498A. They emphasize the seriousness of the charges, potential risk to the defacto complainant and witnesses, and the need for an effective investigation. The response underscores that the husband is not an accused and that the court should exercise caution, maintaining public order and safety while balancing the right to a fair trial.

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)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify COVID-19 related guidelines for prison conditions; not central to the bail reasoning.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited for general salutary directions in the wake of the pandemic; not treated as binding authority on bail disposition.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reinforce the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, guiding the court’s approach to grant 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 Bail Application No. 5648 of 2020 (B.A.No.5648/2020) vs 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 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5648 OF 2020 CRIME NO.329/2020 OF Chittarikal Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**||**BIJU ALIAS JOSEPH M GEORGE**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 47 YEARS**| |||**SON OF GEORGE,**| |||**RESIDING AT MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| |||**KUNNUMKAI, CHITTARIKKAL P.O.,**| |||**VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,**| |||**PIN 671 326**| |||**671326**| |**2**||**VINOD M GEORGE**| |||**AGED 45 YEARS**| |||**SON OF GEORGE, MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| |||**KUNNUMKAI, CHITTARIKKAL P.O.,**| |||**VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| |||**671326**| |**3**||**PHILOMINA**| |||**AGED 70 YEARS**| |||**WIFE OF GEORGE,**| |||**RESIDING AT MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| |||**KUNNUMKAI, CHITTARIKKAL P.O.,**| |||**VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| |||**671326**| |||**BY ADVS.**| |||**SRI.T.MADHU**| |||**SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI**| |**ENT/S**|**:**|| |**1**||**STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| |||**682031**| |**2**||**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| |||**CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| |||**671326**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 2 ## B.A.No.5648 of 2020 ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.5648 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.5648 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of September, 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.329/2020 of Chittarikal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 354 A(i) & (ii) and Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the first and second petitioners are brothers of the husband of the defacto complainant. The third petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The allegation against the petitioners is that they assaulted the defacto complainant on different occasions on silly matters. It is alleged that the petitioners B.A.No.5648 of 2020 4 committed the offences alleged above. 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 against the petitioners is under Section 498A and Section 354 IPC, The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the above offences are not attracted in this case. The counsel submitted that it is only a domestic problem which is unnecessarily boosted by the defacto complainant. 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 and submitted that there is specific allegations against the petitioners. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that the husband of the defacto B.A.No.5648 of 2020 5 complainant is not an accused in this case. It is stated in the F.I. statement that the husband is suffering from some mental illness. The defacto complainant says that she is in good terms with her husband. Admittedly, the defacto complainant is aged 40 years. There are two children aged 11 and 9 years to the defacto complainant. Whether the offence under Section 354 A and Section 498A IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation on the merit of the case. The Public Prosecutor made available the F.I statement given by the defacto complainant. I have gone through the same. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the 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** B.A.No.5648 of 2020 6 **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 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. B.A.No.5648 of 2020 7 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. 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 8 ## B.A.No.5648 of 2020 Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic. 7. Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Investigating Officer. If there is no passport, they will file an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating officer. 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** al/-+