Bail Application No. 7811 of 2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ||**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**|**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**| |---|---|---| |**MONDAY, THE 30TH**||**DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942**| |||**Bail Appl..No.7811 OF 2020**| |**CRIME NO.1650/2020 OF Poochakkal Police Station , Alappuzha**||| |**PETITIONER/ACCUSED**<br>**:**||| |**1**|**BABU**|| ||**AGED 52**|**YEARS**| ||**PRABIN NIVAS, PERUMBALAM, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA**|| ||**688570**|| |**2**|**MANOJ V**|**S**| ||**AGED 37**|**YEARS**| ||**VEZHAKKATTU, PERUMBALAM, CHERTHALA**|| ||**688570**|| |**3**|**SAMEESH**|| ||**AGED 44**|**YEARS**| ||**VEZHAKKATTU, PERUMBALAM, CHERTHALA**|| ||**688570**|| |**4**|**SUJITH P K**|| ||**AGED 37**|**YEARS**| ||**PUTHENVEEDU, PERUMBALAM, CHERTHALA**|| ||**688570**|| ||**BY ADV.**|**SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A**| B.A.No. 7811 OF 2020 2 ## **RESPONDENT/:** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688526** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7811 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7811 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 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.1650 of 2020 of Poochakkal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324, 254, 294(b), 506, 341 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The offence under Section 325 IPC is also subsequently added. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.11.2020. B.A.No. 7811 OF 2020 4 due to previous enmity towards the son of the defacto complainant, accused persons trespassed in to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant, her son and mother-in-law. It is alleged that in the assault, the defacto complainant sustained injury on his head. It is alleged that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 354 IPC also. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the offences alleged against the petitioners except the offence under Section 354 IPC are bailable. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not attracted in this case. 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 but the Public Prosecutor submitted that if B.A.No. 7811 OF 2020 5 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. Admittedly, another crime is also registered in connection with an earlier incident as Crime No.1649/2020. According to the petitioners, this is a counter blast to the above case. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 IPC. Whether such an offence is attracted or not in this case is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. Considering the entire facts and circumstances 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** B.A.No. 7811 OF 2020 6 **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. 7811 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. B.A.No. 7811 OF 2020 8 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 can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-