Bail Application No.7479 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-11-13
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for like amount; (2) appearance before the IO on Mondays at 10 am until final report; (3) no entry into the jurisdiction of North Paravur Police Station for two months; (4) cooperation with investigation and no inducement; (5) compliance with social distancing guidelines; (6) restriction on leaving India without court permission; (7) no commission of similar offences; (8) potential cancellation of bail for violation.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions as stated in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anu
Rajkumar alias Unni
Adarsh

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Shiras Aliyar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Renjith T.R., PP (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application by Anu, Rajkumar alias Unni, and Adarsh in B.A. No. 7479 of 2020 arising from Crime No. 944 of 2020 registered at North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioners are accused under Sections 120B, 447, 307, 323, 324, and 354A r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy on 14–15 September 2020 to trespass into the de facto complainant’s residence, resulting in an assault with an iron rod with intent to kill and an attempt to outrage the wife’s modesty, leading to serious injuries. The petitioners were arrested on 19 October 2020. The petitioners’ counsel contends that the dispute stems from a matrimonial feud between the sister of the 3rd accused and her husband, and that the case is a false fabrication; they express willingness to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, pointing to the gravity of the offences and the wound certificate showing two lacerated wounds. The High Court notes the seriousness but treats the matter as a domestic dispute and, while not expressing views on merits, grants bail on stringent conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appearance before the IO on Mondays, a two-month restriction on entering the North Paravur jurisdiction, compliance with Covid-19 guidelines, and other standard conditions. The order emphasizes bail as the rule and jail as the exception and reserves cancellation for violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSections 120B, 447, 307, 323, 324, 354A r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend a matrimonial dispute between the sister of the 3rd accused and her husband has led to a false case; they are in custody from 19.10.2020, ready to abide with strict conditions, and request bail so as to enable a fair trial and avoid undue prejudice.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the offences are grave, including possible attempt to kill; the presence of two lacerated wounds and other evidence point to serious injuries. Though the petitioners may be released with conditions, the prosecution argues for stringent scrutiny to prevent influence on witnesses and to ensure fair investigation.

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	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify directions on minimizing prison population and social distancing; not central to the bail decision.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	—	Mentioned Only	Cited for background directions by a Full Bench on Covid-19 precautions, not a decisive authority in the bail grant.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to state the basic jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, supporting grant of bail.

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 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7479 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.944/2020 OF North Parur Police Station , Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**||**ANU**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 20 YEARS**| |||**SON OF ANIL KUMAR, ANU BHAVAN,**| |||**CHATTAMUKKU, OLIPPUNADA,**| |||**NARIVANMOODU P.O.,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |||**PIN-695528**| |**2**||**RAJKUMAR ALIAS UNNI**| |||**AGED 23 YEARS**| |||**SON OF RAJAN, SINDHU BHAVAN,**| |||**NELLIKKALA, MARAYIMUTTOM P.O., NEMAM**| |||**PIN-695124**| |**3**||**ADARSH**| |||**AGED 23 YEARS**| |||**SON OF SANTHOSH, ANI BHAVAN,**| |||**LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, VATTIYOORKKAVU,**| |||**PIN-695013**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAS ALIYAR**| |**ENT**|**:**|| |||**STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**| |||**KERALA, ERNAKULAM,**| |||**PIN-682031**| ## **RESPONDENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.7479 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7479 of 2020 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.944 of 2020 of North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 447, 307, 323, 324, 354A r/w.34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.9.2020, petitioners along with the remaining accused committed criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy trespassed into the residential compound of the de facto complainant on 15.9.2020 at 7.15 pm, assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron rod with intention to kill him and when the wife of the de facto complainant intervened pushed her down with B.A.No.7479 of 2020 3 intention to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute between the sister of the 3[rd] accused and her husband. The counsel submitted that in connection with that there was some dispute between the families. This is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are arrested on 19.10.2020. 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 petitioners committed serious offence. The Public Prosecutor made available the wound certificate of the injured, in which there are two lacerated wounds. The Public Prosecutor submitted that as far as the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused are concerned there are serious allegations. B.A.No.7479 of 2020 4 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners are in custody from 19.10.2020 onwards. 8. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. The offence under Section 307 IPC is also alleged. But the entire incident happened in connection with a matrimonial dispute. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The manner in which the incident happened is serious according to me. Therefore, the petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of North Paravur Police Station for a period of two months from today so that the investigation can be completed without any influence of the petitioner. But the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am till the investigation in Crime No.944 of 2020 is completed. For the purpose of appearance before the Investigating Officer, the petitioners can enter the jurisdictional limit. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the detention period of the petitioners, I B.A.No.7479 of 2020 5 think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this B.A.No.7479 of 2020 6 case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on - executing a bond for Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. 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 to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence B.A.No.7479 of 2020 7 similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. 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. 6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of North Paravur Police Station for a period of two months. 7. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am till final report is filed. For the purpose of appearance the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit of North Paravur Police Station. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional B.A.No.7479 of 2020 8 Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms