B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7042 OF 2020 CRIME NO.951/2020 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**MUNEER.P,AGED 35 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**SON OF MUHAMMEDKUNHI, K.M.K HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR**| ||**VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK**| ||**671531**| |**2**|**AISHA.P,**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**WIFE OF MUHAMMEDKUNHI (LATE),**| ||**K.M.K.HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG**| ||**TALUK.**| ||**671531**| |**3**|**AZEEZ.P,**| ||**AGED 45 YEARS**| ||**SON OF MUHAMMEDKUNHI (LATE),**| ||**K.M.K.HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG**| ||**TALUK.**| ||**671531**| |**4**|**SHAHINA.E.K,**| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**WIFE OF AZEEZ.P, AGED 45 YEARS,**| ||**K.M.K.HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK**| ||**671531**| |**5**|**SHAHANA,**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**WIFE OF SHAMSHEER,**| ||**K.M.K.HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK**| ||**671531**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR**| **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 2** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 3** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 4th day of November 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 951 of 2020 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant who is the wife of the 1[st] petitioner.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the** **petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioners** **submitted that, the allegation against the** ## **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 4** **petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that, the allegation is that there is matrimonial cruelty. The counsel submitted that, the relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting them bail.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, if this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the allegation is that the petitioners committed matrimonial cruelty. The matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is allowed on** **stringent conditions.** ## **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 5** **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 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** ## **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 6** **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 proposes 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** **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 7** **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;** **4. The petitioners shall not** **leave India without permission of the Court;** **5. The 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the** **B.A.NO.7042 OF 2020 8** **jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **Sd/-** **pkk** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**