Dinuraj D v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6545 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.745/2020 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION , Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **DINURAJ D AGED 28 YEARS THEKKEEVEETTIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O, PATHIRAPALLY, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA 688522** **BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688538** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6545 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.745 of 2020 of Mannancherry Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 354 (A), 354(B), 452, 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 8.6.2020 at about 6 p.m., the accused herein criminally trespassed into the residential house of the defacto B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 3 complainant, with intention to outrage her modesty. The specific allegation is that the accused herein caught hold of the hand of the defacto complainant and ripped her churidar. It is also alleged that the accused herein destroyed the window glasses, birds net as well as the household articles including the LED T.V., home theatre, plastic chair etc. It is alleged that loss to the defacto complainant is about Rs.40,000/-. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-bailable offence in this case is Sections 354 B and 452 IPC. The counsel submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 4 opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner trespassed into the house and committed mischief. The Pubic Prosecutor submitted that in the scene mahassar, the mischief committed by the petitioner is clear. The Public Prosecutor submitted that in such circumstances, this Court may not grant bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452 and 354 IPC. Whether Section 354 B IPC is attracted in this case is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. Moreover, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are neighbours. The incident happened in connection with some earlier incident happened about a week ago. I do not want to make any observation on the merit of the case. But I have to consider the fact that as per the scene mahassar, there is clear finding that the accused committed the mischief. Of course, it is a matter to be proved before B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 5 the court after adducing evidence. But the petitioner cannot escape with an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C without paying a portion of the amount which is alleged to be lost to the defacto complainant. This amount will be in deposit before the lower court and the same will be considered by the lower court at the appropriate stage if any final report is filed in this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 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 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. 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** B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 6 **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 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 propose to arrest the petitioner, he 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 like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 7 and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. 6. The petitioner 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. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- before the jurisdictional court within two weeks from the date on which he is released on bail by the investigating officer. B.A.No.6545 OF 2020 8 8. 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** al/-