Bail Applications Nos. 7278/2020 and 7294/2020 (Jishnu P v. State of Kerala; XX v. State of Kerala)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-11-12
Court Decision / Holding: The bail applications are allowed with stringent conditions, including prompt appearance before the Investigating Officer, furnishing bonds and sureties, non-violation of any conditions, travel restrictions, no leave of India without court permission, handing over passports or filing a suitable affidavit, and adherence to social distancing guidelines. The court also cautioned that any breach could result in cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Allowed with stringent conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jishnu P
XX

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Chelakkara Police Station, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Mansoor Ali
• Sri. B. Mohanlal

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common order of a Kerala High Court Single Judge in two bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC, arising from Crime No.582/2020 of Chelakkara Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners, Jishnu P (BA 7278/2020) and another accused (BA 7294/2020), are alleged to have committed offences including Section 354 IPC, and sections 7, 8, 11(i), 12, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act, with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 also invoked. The prosecution alleges elopement and sexual abuse of a minor with knowledge of the other accused. The two bail applications were heard together since they arise from the same crime. The court reviewed the statements of the victims under Section 164 CrPC and heard submissions from both sides. Counsel for the petitioners contended a false case due to matrimonial disputes, opining that the victim’s statement is a parroting of facts and the offence is not made out; one petitioner claimed innocence. The Public Prosecutor argued against bail but provided the 164 CrPC statements for reference. In light of the COVID-19 context and social distancing concerns, the court referenced Supreme Court and Kerala High Court directions and ultimately allowed bail on stringent conditions, rather than keeping the accused in custody.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 354 IPCSections 7, 8, 11(i), 12, 16 & 17 of the POCSO ActSection 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners argued that there is a matrimonial dispute and the allegation is false; the victim’s statement appears parrotted and the offence is not made out, hence bail should be granted with conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor opposed bail but relied on the victim's 164 CrPC statements; submitted that the gravity of the offences and the involvement of a minor prima facie require cautious consideration of bail.

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	Mentioned Only	Cited for social distancing and prison-population management measures during the pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	—	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directions cited regarding minimizing inmates in prisons in the wake of COVID-19.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reaffirm the bail principle: bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, ensuring the right to fair trial.

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** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7278 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.582/2020 OF Chelakkara Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **JISHNU P AGED 22 YEARS PRACHINKAYIL HOUSE, P.O. PULAKKODE, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR 680586** **BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR ALI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 680586** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7294/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7294 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.582/2020 OF Chelakkara Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **XX AGED 29 YEARS X 680623** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR 680586** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7278/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.7278/2020 & &7294 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code were heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.582 of 2020 of Chelakkara Police Station. These bail applications are filed by the first and second accused in the above cases. Since the bail applications are filed by the accused in the same crime, I am disposing these bail applications by a common order. 3. The case is registered alleging offences B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 4 punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 7, 8, 11 (i), 12, 16 & 17 of the POCSO Act. The offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 is also alleged. 4. The prosecution case is that the petitioner in B.A. No. 7294/2020 eloped with the petitioner in B.A. No.7278/2020. It is the prosecution case that with the knowledge of the petitioner in B.A. 7294/2020, the petitioner in B.A 7278/2020 sexually abused the child of the defacto complainant. 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The counsel for the petitioner in B.A. 7294/2020 submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the father of the child. This is a false case foisted against the petitioner because of the matrimonial dispute. The counsel submitted that a mere perusal of the statement of the victim itself show that it is a parrot like version. The B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 5 counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence is not made out. The counsel for the petitioner in B.A. 7278/2020 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the offence is not attracted. 7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but the Public Prosecutor made available the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the victim children in this case. 8. After hearing both sides, I think, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. I perused the statement given by the victim girls. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. In the statement, these minor girls stated that the mother requested them to give a kiss to the petitioner in B.A. No.7278/2020. Again, I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Admittedly, there is a matrimonial dispute is pending between the petitioner in B.A. No.7294/2020 and the B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 6 father of the children who are now with the father. Considering the entire facts and circumstances I think, these Bail Applications 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 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. 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 B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 7 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. 11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are 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. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 8 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 passports before the Investigating Officer. If there is no passport, they will file an affidavit to that effect before the B.A.Nos. 7278 OF 2020 & 7294/2020 9 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/-