High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-15Bail allowed

Binu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA NO.2710 OF 2020

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-15
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed with stringent conditions. The Superintendent of Jail shall release the petitioner on bail on a self-bond, and a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties. The petitioner must provide his phone number and residential address, report immediately after release, and appear before the Investigating Officer as required. The jurisdictional court shall monitor compliance, and violation of any condition may cancel bail. The petitioner must report to the Station House Officer on all Mondays at 10:00 am until the final report is filed, and must adhere to state and central government social-distancing guidelines. The bail bond, once executed, should be forwarded to the jurisdictional court.
Final Disposition: Bail allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Binu

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.V. Vibin
• Habeeba Moosa
• N.S Hasna Mol

Counsels for Respondents

• P.P. Sri. B. Jayasurya (Sr)
• C.K. Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail order concerns Binu, the fourth accused in Crime No.268 of 2020 of Kunnikode Police Station, Kollam District, who is charged under IPC sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 294B, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with 149. The application, filed under Section 439 CrPC, seeks bail while the investigation proceeds. The prosecution alleges that a previous sequence of events led to the murder of Dynish by an unlawful assembly, with the first accused delivering the fatal injury and others slapping or kicking the deceased. The petitioner contends that the overt act involves the 1st accused and highlights that he has been in custody since 25 February 2020 (about 85 days at the time of hearing), while several co-accused (2, 3, 5, 7) have already been granted bail. The public prosecutor concedes that bail can be allowed with stringent conditions, citing the similar treatment of co-accused and the absence of a weapon used by the petitioner. The court also notes the COVID-19 context and the general principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Ultimately, the judge allowing bail references precedents on bail jurisprudence and prescribes strict conditions to ensure monitoring: self-bond, address and telephone details, reporting to the police, sureties, compliance with lockdown guidelines, and continued cooperation with the investigation. Local prison social-distancing concerns and the ongoing pandemic shape the conditional grant of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure CodeSection 441 Cr.P.C.Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(b), 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with 149 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main overt act concerns the 1st accused; the petitioner has been in custody since 25.02.2020 (roughly 85 days); several co-accused have already been released on bail, suggesting similar circumstances. It was argued that the accused did not use a dangerous weapon and that bail should be allowed with stringent conditions, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the aim of balancing fair trial rights with public safety.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor fairly urged that the bail application can be allowed under stringent conditions, noting that bail remains the general rule and imprisonment is the exception. He emphasized the need to guard against witness tampering and ensure compliance with investigation timelines, while acknowledging the social-distancing directives applicable to prisons amid the pandemic.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to underscore the fundamental bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and that refusal is the exception, guiding the court’s approach to this bail petition.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social-distancing norms and other salutary directions for minimizing inmates in prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions issued for minimizing prison populations and related guidelines cited to support measures during the pandemic.

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 Binu v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

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 15TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 25TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2710 OF 2020** (In Crime No.268/2020 of Kunnikode Police Station) (Kollam District)) ## Petitioner/4th Accused Binu, aged 41, S/o. Thulaseedharan Achari, Thulasi Vilasom, Chakkuvarakkal Muri, Chakkuvarakkal Village. By Advocates: P.V. VIBIN HABEEBA MOOSA N.S HASNA MOL (K/325/2015) (H.289) ## Respondent State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam – 682 031. By P.P. Sri.B.JAYASURYA (SR) & C.K.PRASAD **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------B.A.No.2710 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of May, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.268 of 2020 of Kunnikode Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(b), 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal code. 3.The prosecution case is that, due to the previous animosity towards deceased, accused 1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed murder of one Dynish. According to the prosecution case, the 1[st] accused inflicted the fatal injury. The B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 3 allegation against accused 2 to 5 is that, they slapped and kicked the deceased. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main overt act is against the 1[st] accused. He also submitted that, the petitioner is arrested on 25.2.2020 and he is in custody for last about 85 days. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that accused no. 2,3 5, and 7 were already released on bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions, especially for the reason that the other accused against whom the similar allegations is there like the petitioner is already released on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and considering the fact that the accused no 2, 3, 5 and 7 are already released on bail and also considering the fact that, the petitioner is in custody B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 4 from 25.2.2020, I think this bail application can be allowed. I also noted the fact that the allegations against the petitioner is only slapping and kicking the deceased and no dangerous weapon used by the petitioner, even as per the prosecution case. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed. 7. 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. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 5 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. 9. 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 Superintendent of Jail concerned where the petitioner is incarcerated is directed to release the petitioner on bail on executing a self bond ensuring that he will appear before the Court concerned as and when required, if he is not in detention in any other case. It is further directed that the Superintendent of Jail B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 6 should get the bail bond from the petitioner/petitioners as stipulated in Section 441 Cr.P.C. 2. The Superintendent of Jail concerned shall also get the phone number and the address at which the petitioner would be residing after his release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioner will forthwith forward the bail bond obtained from the petitioner to the jurisdictional Court. 4. The petitioner immediately after release from the prison, report before the Station House Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station and shall furnish his phone number and the place where he is going to reside. The Station House Officer concerned shall keep a vigil on the whereabouts of the B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 7 petitioner and shall ensure that the petitioner does not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 6. The petitioner shall within one week from the commencement of the functioning of the jurisdictional court, if the court is not functioning at present, execute 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. 7. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with B.A.NO. 2710 OF 2020 8 respect to keeping of social distancing and other directions in the wake of declared lockdown. 7. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10.00am till final report is filed in Crime No.268/2020. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** ska