Bail Application No. 6291 of 2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6291 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1052/2019 OF Ollur Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 V. RAJKUMAR AGED 48 YEARS S.O. DR. K.P. VISWANATHAN, KOZHUVATTASSERIL, MURINJAKAL P.O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA 689693 2 HAREESH AGED 50 YEARS S.O. DR. K.P. VISHWANATHAN, KOZHUVATTASSERIL, MURINJAKAL P.O.,KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA 689693 3 SUNIL KUMAR AGED 51 YEARS S.O. KUMARAN, AMRITHAM, MATHILIL P.O., 691601 BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6291 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 16[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.1052 of 2019 of Ollur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and 7 others alleging offences punishable under Sections 347, 395, 506, 294(b) & 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.06 2019 at 11.15 a.m., the petitioner along with 7 other accused persons kidnapped the defacto complainant from Palakkad, threatened him showing weapons, abused him, assaulted him and robbed Rs.6 lakh B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 3 from him and took away his Benz car worth Rs.21 lakh. Later, he was abandoned in a public road near BRD company, Marathakkara. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the first petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(c) No. 22016 of 2019 for conducting investigation of the crime by a senior officer. This Court disposed that Writ Petition on 10.8.2020. Annexure-1 is the judgment passed by this Court. The learned counsel take me through paragraph 9 of the judgment and the same is extracted hereunder. _“9. The grievance of the petitioner appears to have some foundation. Therefore, I am of opinion that the grievance ventilated through Ext.P8 should also be investigated for the ends of justice especially when the present investigation is assailed as being unfair and unjust. In order to ensure that the conduct of_ B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 4 _investigation in Ext.P1 crime is just and proper, I am of opinion that the WP(C).No.22016 OF 2019(B) 6 third respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Ollur ought to be called upon to look into Ext.P8 complaint and conduct specific and pointed investigation with respect to the allegations made therein against the fifth respondent, de facto complainant. If the third respondent has any reason to think that subject matter of Ext.P8 concerns a transaction, which cannot be investigated as part of Ext.P1 crime, then also, he may choose to register a separate crime based on Ext.P8 and conduct requisite investigation into the allegations therein.”_ 6. The counsel submitted that this Court taken note of the fact that the grievance ventilated by the petitioners should also be investigated for the ends of justice. Therefore, certain directions are issued by this Court in the above writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The counsel submitted that there is some monetary transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. The petitioners paid an amount of Rs.40 lakh for getting a rice puller. In connection with the same, there was some monetary dispute between the B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 5 petitioners and defacto complainant. No criminal offence is made out. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. There is CC T.V footage also to corroborate the version of the defacto complainant. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the recovery of the vehicle is also necessary in this case. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary in this case. 8. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly there is some monetary transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. The alleged incident happened on 24.6.2020 and the complaint is filed on 3.7.2020. This Court in W.P.(c) No.22016/2019 issued certain directions which are extracted above. This Court found that the case of the petitioners also should be investigated. I do not want B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 6 to make any observation on the merit of the case. 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 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 B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 7 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 petitioner, he 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. B.A.No.6291 OF 2020 8 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m. for a period of two months from today. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-