Bindulekha v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner is released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, and on conditions including appearance before the IO for interrogation, cooperation with the investigation, not leaving India without court permission, not committing similar offences, and regular appearances on Mondays and Fridays until final report is filed. The jurisdictional court may cancel the bail if any condition is violated; the prosecution and victim may move the court for cancellation.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bindulekha

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (Sr. P.P. Adv. Sreeja V.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application arises from Crime No.157/2022 at Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein Bindulekha, the first accused, is charged initially under sections including 294(b), 341, 447, 354, 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC; subsequently, a charge under section 302 IPC was added after deleting 307 IPC. The prosecution case alleges that on 01.03.2022 the second accused trespassed into the de facto complainant’s property, assaulted her husband and subsequently the de facto complainant; the first accused is alleged to have intervened, and with a rubber tree stick the husband of the de facto complainant was struck, resulting in his death. The investigation was at a preliminary stage, and the defense contended that the serious charge of murder under section 302 may not be attracted; the first accused is the sister of the second accused and largely not the principal offender. The court invokes the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and ultimately grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, cooperation with the investigation, travel restrictions, and regular appearance before the IO on specified days, with possible cancellation of bail for violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 341 IPCSection 447 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 307 r/w 34 IPCSection 302 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she has been in custody since 01.03.2022, the gravest aspects of the alleged acts lie largely with the second accused, and the offence under section 302 IPC was added later after the incident. It is argued that the petitioner intervened in a sudden situation and the weapon alleged is not necessarily capable of causing death; the investigation is at a preliminary stage, and bail should be granted with stringent conditions to ensure fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution submits that the offences are serious, including the murder charge added to the case, and that the investigation is at an early stage. The petitioner is the sister of the second accused, and the court should be cautious, given the gravity of the alleged offences and possible interference with evidence or witnesses.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the court to grant bail given the circumstances.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.157/2022 OF Maranallor Police Station, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ## **`PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:`** ``` BINDULEKHA AGED 42 YEARS D/O. INDIRADEVI, KULAPPALLIVILAKAM VEEDU, KANDALA AZHAKAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695512 BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 ``` ``` SR.P.P ADV. SREEJA V. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.3105 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No.157 of 2022 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case was initially registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 447, 354, 323, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added after deleting Section 307 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 01.03.2022 at 7.45 a.m, the 2[nd] accused trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant, caught on her hand and ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` attempted to misbehave with her. While so, she escaped and ran inside the house. On hearing the sound of de facto complainant, her husband came out of the house, but the 2[nd] accused used obscene words and assaulted him. When the de facto complainant intervened, the 2[nd] accused assaulted her. It is also alleged that the 2[nd] accused kicked the husband of de facto complainant down when he tried to rescue her. It is further stated that while the husband of the de facto complainant ran out of the property, the 2[nd] accused chased him and pushed him down. While so, the 1[st] accused came to the scene with a rubber tree stick and using the same hit on the head of the husband of the de facto complainant, by which he fell down. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital. Subsequently he died. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences inter alia under Section 302 IPC. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2022 onwards. The counsel submitted that the serious allegation is against the 2[nd] accused. The counsel also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is clear that the petitioner intervened because of the sudden situation arised there. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 302 is not attracted in this case. The counsel submitted that the alleged weapon used by the petitioner is not sufficient to cause death. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail Application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offence. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the preliminary stage and the petitioner may not be released on bail. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` nature. But the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2022 onwards. The petitioner is the sister of the 2[nd] accused. A perusal of the incident, it is clear that the major portion of the overt acts are by the 2[nd] accused and the petitioner was actually came to the scene subsequently. Section 302 IPC was added subsequently. I do not want to make any further observation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2022 onwards, the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. 5. 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 in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 6. 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. Petitioner 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.a.m till final report is filed in the above case. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** hmh . ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3105 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ```