High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-14Bail granted to the petitioners on stringent co...

Bail Application No. 6451 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.6451 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-10-14
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed with stringent conditions: 1) Petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; 2) If the IO proposes arrest post-interrogation, petitioners shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount; 3) Petitioners must appear for interrogation as required and cooperate with the investigation, avoiding inducement or threats; 4) Petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; 5) Petitioners shall not commit similar offences; 6) Petitioners shall adhere to social distancing and COVID-19 guidelines; 7) Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the IO, or file an affidavit; 8) If any condition is violated, the court can cancel the bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjith.K.R.
Sathi.M.

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K. Mohanakannan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Sri. Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns two accused, Renjith K.R. and Sathi M., in Crime No. 1308 of 2020 registered at Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged are under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC. The prosecution claims mental and physical harassment of the defacto complainant; the defence contends that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the complainant persists and the allegations are unfounded. The advocate for the petitioners asserts willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions, arguing the relationship and the social-distancing context should influence release. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting the involvement of Section 323 IPC as well. The Court cites established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, reaffirming that the basic approach remains to balance fair trial with public interest. It also relies on directions issued in light of COVID-19 to minimize prison populations. Ultimately, after considering the facts, the Court grants bail under stringent conditions. The order emphasizes appearance for interrogation, bonds of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, non-leave-India restrictions, compliance with COVID-19 guidelines, and passport surrender or affidavit, with a power to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 498A read with Section 34 IPCSection 323 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the allegations are not correct, the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant continues, and the accused are willing to abide any bail conditions. They submit that there is no immediate need for custodial interrogation, and with COVID-19 concerns, liberty should be preferred unless there is a strong countervailing reason. They assure cooperation with investigation and seek a fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting that Section 323 IPC is also alleged and that the due process of investigation must be preserved. The prosecution emphasizes the risk of tampering and the need to enforce social distancing norms in prisons, arguing that release on bail should be approached with caution given the broader public interest and the seriousness of matrimonial offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Used to justify social distancing and other directions to minimize prison populations in light of COVID-19.
W.P(C) No. 9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions in the Kerala High Court to minimize the number of inmates, informing the court’s approach to custodial measures and bail in the pandemic context.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Affirms the bail jurisprudence: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the court's approach to 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. 6451 of 2020 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.6451 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1308/2020 OF Mannar Police Station , Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**RENJITH.K.R.**| |---|---| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**PUTHANPURA KIZHAKKETHIL, ORIPRAM MURI, CHENNITHALA**| ||**VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT**| ||**689622**| |**2**|**SATHI.M.**| ||**AGED 61 YEARS**| ||**PUTHENPURA KIZHAKKETHIL, ORIPRAM MURI, CHENNITHALA**| ||**VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT**| ||**689622**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |1.|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**682031**| |2.|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNAR POLICE STATION,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 689622. PIN- 689622**| ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** B.A.No. 6451 OF 2020 2 ## **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. 6451 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6451 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. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1308 of 2020 of Mannar Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the B.A.No. 6451 OF 2020 4 ## learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that the allegation is that the petitioners committed matrimonial offence. 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. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 323 IPC is also alleged. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is now in existence. The allegation is matrimonial offence. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of B.A.No. 6451 OF 2020 5 the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence even now, 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 COVID19 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** B.A.No. 6451 OF 2020 6 **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 sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. B.A.No. 6451 OF 2020 7 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 Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic. 7. Petitioners shall surrender their B.A.No. 6451 OF 2020 8 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. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-