Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted to both petitioners on stringent c...

B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2020-10-12
Court Decision / Holding
The bail applications are allowed on stringent conditions. Directions include: petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, they shall furnish Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties each; ensure cooperation with investigation; not leave India without court permission; refrain from committing similar offences; comply with social distancing norms as per government directives; and court may cancel bail on violation.
Final Disposition
Bail granted to both petitioners on stringent conditions; if violated, bail may be canceled.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shajina P.P.
  • Sajith M

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Abdul Raoof Pallipath (for 6299)
  • • Raj Carolin V. (for 6295)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Bail Applications under Section 438 CrPC arise from Crime No.526/2020 of Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur. The petitioners—Shajina P.P. (B.A.No.6299/2020) and Sajith M. (B.A.No.6295/2020)—are accused in a case alleging abandonment of their minor child and offences under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Sections 75 and 87. The abandonment is dated 4 December 2017, but the complaint was registered only in 2020. The petitioners contend matrimonial discord and pending Family Court proceedings; they argue the allegations may be false or not attract offences. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but indicated that stringent conditions could be imposed. The learned Judge heard both sides and disposed of both petitions together, noting the connection between the two cases and the ongoing Family Court proceedings. Relying on the general principle in bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as affirmed in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court allowed the bail applications on stringent conditions to ensure cooperation and fair trial. In view of the COVID-19 context, the court invoked Supreme Court and Kerala HC directions to minimize prison population. The order requires appearance before the IO, bond and sureties, non-leave-without-permission, non-commission of similar offences, and adherence to social distancing guidelines; bail may be canceled for violations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Criminal Procedure CodeJuvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 75 and 87

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
  • Basic jurisprudence that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner in B.A.No.6299 asserted matrimonial discord with the de facto complainant and argued that the abandonment alleged on 4.12.2017 is linked to ongoing Family Court proceedings; the complaint filed in 2020 is belated and the case merits no outright rejection of bail. The petitioner in B.A.No.6295 contended there is no connection to the allegation and, even if the facts are accepted, no offence is attracted against him. Both counsels submitted that the investigation should proceed with safeguards and that detention should not be prolonged given the pending family disputes.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but indicated that stringent conditions could be imposed; emphasis was on safeguarding the investigation and social interests amid a matrimonial dispute and the need to ensure that the petitioners do not tamper with witnesses or flee."

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveCited to reinforce the fundamental bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In PrisonsSuo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020Mentioned OnlyCited to reference Supreme Court directions on social distancing in prisons, invoked for Covid-19 related guidelines rather than ratio decidendi.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020Mentioned OnlyCited as supportive of the Court’s approach to minimizing prison populations under pandemic-related directives, not as a binding ratio in this bail decision.

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 B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 20TH ASWINA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.6299 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.526/2020 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION , Kannur** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHAJINA.P.P AGED 36 YEARS DAUGHTER OF PURUSHOTHAMAN FLAT NO. 1 G, SREEROSH MIDTOWN APARTMENT THALIKAVU, KANNUR, PIN- 670001** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6295/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 20TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6295 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.526/2020 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION , Kannur** ## **PETITIONER:** **SAJITH M AGED 44 YEARS PARTHASARADAM KAKKAD PO KANNUR PIN-670013** **BY ADV. SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6299/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[th ] day of October, 2020 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.526 of 2020 of Chakkarakkal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Since the petitioners in these bail applications are accused in the same Crime, I am disposing these bail applications together. 3. The prosecution case is that on 4.12.2017 while the de facto complainant and the petitioner in B.A.No.6299 of 2020 were living as husband and wife at ‘Ushus’ in Ancharakandy amsom, Mamba desom, the 1[st] accused without giving proper ## B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 4 care and protection to her minor child, abandoned the child and went along with the 2[nd] accused, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.6295 of 2020. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A.No.6299 of 2020 submitted that there is a dispute between the petitioner and her husband. According to him, there are cases pending before the Family Court. The alleged abandonment is on 4.12.2017. Now the case is filed in 2020. That itself shows that it is a false case, the counsel submitted. The counsel in B.A.No.6295 of 2020 submitted that he has absolutely no connection to the allegation in this case. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is attracted against him. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think these bail applications B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 5 can be allowed on stringent conditions. The alleged abandonment was on 4.12.2017. The complaint is filed in 2020. Admittedly there is matrimonial dispute pending between the petitioner in B.A.No.6299 of 2020 and the de facto complainant in this case. A divorce petition is pending before the Family Court. There are other cases also pending before the Family Court. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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 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. 10. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is ## B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 6 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. 11. 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) with two solvent sureties each for the B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 7 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 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 B.A.Nos.6295 & 6299 of 2020 8 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** cms