Hafeez v. State of Kerala (Bail Appl. No.6826/2020)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6826 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.426/2020 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ 6th ACCUSED:** **HAFEEZ AGED 22 YEARS** **HAFEEZ, SON OF HARIS, NADUVILE HOUSE, NETTOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM 682040** **BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENT:** ## **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R.,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6959/2020, Bail Appl..6973/2020, Bail Appl..6979/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6959 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.426/2020 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/4th ACCUSED:** **MUHAMMAD SHAHAL AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM VETTIKATTUPRAMBU,NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM 682040** **BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6826/2020, Bail Appl..6973/2020, Bail Appl..6979/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6973 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.426/2020 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ 5th ACCUSED:** **MUHAMMAD BADUSHA N.M. AGED 22 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED JISWAN N.K., NADUVILA VEEDU, MASJID ROAD, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM 682040** **BY ADV. SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD 682506** **BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6826/2020, Bail Appl..6959/2020, Bail Appl..6979/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6979 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.426/2020 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ 1st ACCUSED:** |||**AKHIL DAS**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 26 YEARS**| |||**MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, MARADU MUNCIPALITY, WARD 23,**| |||**NETTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT**| |||**682040**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**| |||**KERALA**| |||**682031**| |**2**||**STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| |||**PANAGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.**| |||**682506**| |||**BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6826/2020, Bail Appl..6959/2020, Bail Appl..6973/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 5** ## **O R D E R** - **[ Bail Appl..6826/2020, Bail Appl..6959/2020, Bail Appl..6973/2020, Bail Appl..6979/2020 ] Dated this the 28th day of October 2020** ... **These Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) were heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioners in these bail applications are accused in Crime No.426 of 2020 of Panangad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 392, 506(i) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The petitioner in B.A.No.6979 of 2020 is the 1[st] accused. The petitioner in B.A.No. 6959 of 2020 is the 4[th] accused. The petitioner in B.A.No.6973 of 2020 is the 5[th] accused. The petitioner in B.A.No.6826 of 2020 is the 6[th] accused.** **4. Since the appellants in these bail** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 6** **applications are the accused in the very same crime number, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.** **5. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners along with the other accused with intention to commit robbery damaged the car belonging to the friend of the defacto complainant's daughter and committed theft of two mobile phones which were kept inside the car and abused and threatened the defacto complainant and her daughter and thereby the petitioners committed the aforesaid offences.** **6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.** **7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are in custody from 25.09.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that, one of the accused in this case is already released on bail by the Sessions Court. The counsel submitted that, it is a false case foisted against the** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 7** **petitioners. The counsel submitted that, there is a delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.statement which itself shows that, this is a false case. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting them bail.** **8. The learned public prosecutor opposed these bail applications. The public prosecutor submitted that, accused Nos.5 and 6 who are petitioners in B.A.No.6973 of 2020 and B.A.No.6826 of 2020 are also involved in N.D.P.S. case. The public prosecutor submitted that, the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. The public prosecutor submitted that, the petitioners may not be released on bail at this stage.** **9. After hearing both sides, I think, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, one of the accused in this case is already released on bail by the Sessions Court. The petitioners in these bail applications and other accused who is released on bail by the** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 8** **Sessions Court were arrested on the same date. It is true that, the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But considering the fact that one of the accused in this case is already released on bail, it would be injustice to deny bail to these petitioners. While granting bail to the petitioners, there can be a direction to the petitioners not to enter the jurisdictional limits of Panangad Police Station till a final report is filed in Crime No.426 of 2020. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, these bail applications are allowed on stringent conditions.** **10. 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 COVID19 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** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 9** **inside prisons.** **11. 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 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.** **12. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions:** **1. The petitioners 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** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 10** **satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;** **2. 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;** **3. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;** **4. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 11** ## **they are suspected;** **5. The petitioners shall appear** **before the investigating officer on all Mondays' at 10 a.m.** **6. The petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Panangad Police Station till a final report in Crime No.426 of 2020 of that police station is filed. For the purposes of appearing before the Panangad Police Station, the petitioners can enter the jurisdictional limits of Panangad Police Station;** **7. The petitioners 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;** **B.A.Nos.6826, 6959, 6973 & 6979 OF 2020 12** ## **8. 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.** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **pkk** **JUDGE**