Bail Application No. 5690 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-25
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted / Bail allowed with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoop Nair
Sudha Devi

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Chavara South Police Station, Chavara, Kollam
Addl. R3 GOPIKA UDAYAN W/o ANOOP S NAIR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. Rasheed C. Noorani

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI RENJITH.T.R., Public Prosecutor
• Adv. K. RAKESH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC filed by Anoop Nair and Sudha Devi in Crime No. 1058/2020 of Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences under 498A read with 34 IPC and Section 66E IT Act, 2000. The prosecution’s case is that the petitioners subjected the defacto complainant to mental and physical harassment, including alleged misuse of nude photographs, allegedly in violation of a Grama Nyayalaya order (Annexure-A1). The petitioners contest the allegations, claiming the matrimonial relationship continues and asserting willingness to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The respondent State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail, citing need for custodial interrogation and potential harm to the complainant. The defacto complainant, through her counsel, opposes bail on grounds of alleged misuse of photographs and breach of court orders. The court, after hearing, notes the ongoing matrimonial link and emphasizes safeguarding fair trial while considering public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing Supreme Court directions on prison contagion and the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The judge ultimately allows bail with stringent conditions to balance interests and societal concerns, including interrogation timelines, bond/sureties, travel restrictions, and compliance with distancing norms.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 Cr.P.C.Section 498A read with Section 34 IPCSection 66E IT Act, 2000

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same: grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the matrimonial relationship between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant continues, the allegations are false, and the petitioners are ready to comply with any conditions if bail is granted. They urge that custodial interrogation can be avoided or minimized with conditions and that there is a need to consider health and safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. They request bail under strict conditions to protect their rights and preserve the possibility of a fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose bail arguing that custodial interrogation is necessary to progress the investigation. The complainant’s counsel points to alleged misuse of nude photographs and violation of Annexure-A1 order; they contend that releasing the petitioners could undermine the investigation and endanger the victim."

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the court to grant bail with safeguards to ensure fair trial.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social distancing and prison norms during the COVID-19 pandemic; not a direct ruling on bail but used for context on preventive measures.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Referenced for directions issued by a Full Bench on COVID-19 related prison guidelines; treated as persuasive context.

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** ## **FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 3RD ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5690 OF 2020** ## **CRIME NO.1058/2020 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 ANOOP NAIR,AGED 32 YEARS MUZHANGODI HOUSE, PADINJATTU MURI, SOORANAD NORTH P.O, KOLLAM, 690561** - **2 SUDHA DEVI,AGED 52 YEARS MUZHANGODI HOUSE, PADINJATTU MURI, SOORANAD NORTH P.O, KOLLAM 690561** **BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVARA SOUTH POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM 690561** - **3 ADDLR3. GOPIKA UDAYAN W/O ANOOP S NAIR, VRINDAVANAM HOUSE, THEVELAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, PALAKKAL MURIYIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020. R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R.,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 BY ADV. K.RAKESH** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 2 ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 25th day of September 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1058 of 2020 of Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is also alleged against the petitioners.** **3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners committed the offences when there is an order from the Grama Nyayalaya, Chavara.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned public prosecutor.** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 3 ## **5. The learned counsel for the petitioners** **submitted that, the matrimonial relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that, the allegation against the petitioners are false. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners have not committed the offences as alleged. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting bail to them.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary in this case. The counsel for the defacto complainant also opposed this bail application. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that, the nude photographs of the defacto complainant is misused by the 1[st] petitioner. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners violated Annexure-A1 order of the Grama Nyayalaya. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners may not be released** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 4 **on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the matrimonial relationship between the** **1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence even now. The grievance of the defacto complainant is that, the 1[st] petitioner is misusing some photographs of the defacto complainant. If any such misuse of photographs of the defacto complainant is done by the petitioners, the defacto complainant can approach the Police and the Police will do the needful. There can be a direction to the effect that, if any similar offence is committed by the petitioners, the defacto complainant can approach the competent court to cancel this bail order. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is 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** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 5 **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 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** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 6 **before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** **2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 7 ## **to any police officer;** **4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;** **5. The 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. If there is any violation of the conditions in this bail order, the defacto complainant can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate court to cancel this bail order and the jurisdictional Magistrate can pass appropriate orders in accordance to law on such application after hearing the petitioners;** **7. The petitioners shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of** B.A. NO.5690 OF 2020 8 **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** ## **pkk** **JUDGE**