High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-11Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Dhanesh K. Unni v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-11
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner shall appear for interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten days; if the IO proposes arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; he shall not leave India without court permission; shall not commit a similar offence; shall cooperate with the investigation; and shall strictly abide by social distancing and other guidelines for COVID-19. Violation of any condition may result in cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dhanesh K. Unni, aged 33 years, S/O. Krishnaunni A.P., Krishna Kallithazham, Mokavoor, Eranhikkal Post, Elathur P.O., Kozhikode District.

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Kochi-31.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
• SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Bail Applications (B.A. Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020) were heard via video conference before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, arising from three separate FIRs/CRIMES registered at Thiruvambadi Police Station, Kozhikode, involving the same petitioner in three distinct cases. The petitioner, Dhanesh K. Unni, is alleged to have committed offences under Section 354 IPC in connection with alleged sexual assaults during an NSS camp at GLP School, Poovarathodu. The prosecution case states that 65 students participated in the NSS camp, including 18 girls, with three girl students alleging assault by the petitioner. The petitioner contends the allegations are false, asserting a strict disciplinary stance during the camp and suggesting the three complainants are close friends who foisted the case; he is ready to comply with any conditions the Court may impose. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing the petitioner, as a teacher, must be a model for students and that the charges are grave. No interim order restraining arrest existed; the investigation is ongoing, and custodial interrogation may not be necessary, though not excluded. Relying on COVID-19 social-distancing norms and bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court grants bail with conditions: appear before the IO within ten days; furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; not leave India without permission; not commit a similar offence; and comply with public-health guidelines. It is stated that bail, if violated, can be canceled.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 Cr.P.C.Section 354 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same: grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was strict during the NSS camp and that the three students have submitted a false case due to personal enmity or mere fear of strict discipline. He contended the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions and that custodial interrogation is not essential, given the evidence is primarily oral and the investigation is at a standstill. Emphasizing the COVID-19 context, the Counsel urged grant of bail to facilitate a fair trial while minimizing prison population.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that as a teacher the petitioner should be a model for students and that grave allegations involve three girl students; he asserted that custodial interrogation may be necessary to ensure a fair investigation and to prevent tampering with witnesses, though no arrest had yet occurred. He urged keeping bail denied to uphold public interest and the integrity of the educational environment.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing norms and directives to minimize prison populations in light of COVID-19.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No. 9400 of 2020	Positive	Referenced as a Full Bench directive in this Court for salutary directions to reduce inmates and manage prison population in the pandemic context.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reiterate the bail jurisprudence that grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.

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 Dhanesh K. Unni 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** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1234 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.39/2020 OF THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **DHANESH K.UNNI, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAUNNI A.P., KRISHNA KALLITHAZHAM, MOKAVOOR, ERANHIKKAL POST, ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.** ## **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP, SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1241/2020, Bail Appl..1263/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1241 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 111/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE** **CRIME NO.5/2020 OF THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **DHANESH K.UNNI, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAUNNI A.P., KRISHNA KALLITHAZHAM, MOKAVOOR, ERANHIKKAL POST, ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1234/2020, Bail Appl..1263/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1263 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.38/2020 OF THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **DHANESH K. UNNI, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANUNNI A.P., KRISHNA KALLITHAZHAM, MOKAVOOR, ERANHIKKAL POST, ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1234/2020, Bail Appl..1241/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 4 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **========================== B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 ========================== Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2020** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner in all these three cases are the same person. The defacto complainant are different in all these three cases. The allegations against the petitioner is also same. Therefore, these bail applications are disposed by this common order. 3. These cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was working as workshop instructor at AWH Polytechnic, B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 5 Kuttikattur, Kozhikode from 2011 onwards. He joined as a Programe Officer of the National Services Scheme in the year 2017 and he is the District Programe Officer. The prosecution case is that, there was an NSS camp at GLP school, Poovarathodu, in which 65 students participated. Among the students there were 18 girl students. It is alleged that the petitioner committed the sexual assault against the three of the girl students. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was very strict in the camp and these three students submitted a false case against the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that these three students are close friends and they foisted a case because of the strict stand taken by the petitioner, during the camp hours. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 6 conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail Application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner is a teacher and he should be a model for the students. He also submitted that, there are allegations against the petitioner by three girl students. 8. Admittedly, this bail application was filed on 14/02/2020. There is no interim order restraining the arrest of the petitioner, in connection with the above crime cases. Even now, the petitioner is not arrested in connection with above case in the light of proviso to Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the police may be waiting for the disposal of this bail application. In the light of the specific provisions under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which says that, if there is no interim order, the police can arrest an accused, I cannot accept the explanation of the B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 7 learned Public Prosecutor. The investigation of the case is now stand still. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 354 of the IPC. This case is to be proved mainly through oral evidence. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application 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 B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 8 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. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of_ B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 9 _Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;_ _3. 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 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 petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The petitioner 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 petitioner shall strictly abide by the_ B.A.Nos. 1234, 1241, & 1263 of 2020 10 _various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic._ If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** LU