High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-07-28Bail granted to the applicant with specified co...

Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.4516 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-07-28
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed. The court directs release on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties equal to that amount, with conditions: petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as required, to cooperate with the investigation, not to threaten or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, comply with social distancing norms, refrain from entering the Edathala Police Station jurisdiction until final report is filed, and attend IO hearings every Monday at 10 a.m. until final report is filed, with the jurisdictional limit expressly defined for appearances. Violation of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the applicant with specified conditions as detailed in the operative order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hussain

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Rajeev
• K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan
• V. Vinay
• K. Anand

Counsels for Respondents

• Renjith T. R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC is by Hussain, accused in Crime No.548/2020 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam, facing charges under sections 341, 450, 354A(i)(iv), 376(2)(n) and 506(i) IPC. The petitioner has been in custody since 1 July 2020. The prosecution’s case is that on 9 June 2019 he visited the de facto complainant’s rented house, demanded repayment of money, and, when refused, allegedly committed rape on five successive days, with a further incident leading to a complaint and later registration on 30 June 2020. The de facto complainant is stated to be major. The petitioner contends a false implication, alleging that money disputes with the complainant and with Anitha and Arun led to fabricated allegations; Annexure-A2 was submitted to the SP, and the petitioner also filed a writ petition alleging police harassment. The court notes timing aspects of the FIR, the writ petition, and Annexure-A2 and observes the possibility of extraneous influence, yet refrains from commenting on truth. After considering detention duration, COVID-19 public health concerns, and the established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court grants bail with strict conditions, including bond and sureties, limited jurisdiction, regular IO appearances, and compliance with social distancing guidelines.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure CodeSections 341, 450, 354A(i)(iv), 376(2)(n) and 506(i) of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the case is a false implication driven by financial disputes with the de facto complainant and with Anitha and Arun, who allegedly pressured her to file a complaint after the petitioner demanded repayment. Annexure-A2 was submitted to the Superintendent of Police and a writ petition alleging police harassment was filed; the petitioner argues for bail with stringent conditions, stressing readiness to cooperate with investigation and compliance with court directions, including social distancing. He asserts no practical possibility of witness tampering while on bail and requests release given the COVID-19 context and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution emphasizes the gravity of the offences, especially rape for five consecutive days, and potential risks of witness tampering; the FIR was registered after the Annexure-A2 and writ petition, yet the victim is/may be a major. The State argues for custody to ensure fair investigation and to prevent interference, asserting that bail should be refused or restricted in serious cases. While acknowledging COVID-19 concerns, the Prosecution maintains the need for ongoing custodial control until a thorough investigation is complete.

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 measures and to reduce prison populations in light of the pandemic; supports the Court’s COVID-19 related directions and bail considerations.
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, reinforcing the Court’s approach to bail in serious offences.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions on COVID-19 precautions and prison overcrowding cited to justify bail-related conditions and social distancing in custody situations.

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 Hussain 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 28TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4516 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.548/2020 OF Edathala Police Station , Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER:** **HUSSAIN AGED 53 YEARS S/O HYDROSE, ETTUKATTIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAMVELI, EDATHALA NORTH VILLAGE ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, 683563** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4516 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** ------------------------------------ B.A.No.4516 of 2020 ----------------------------------Dated this the 28[th ] day of July, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.548 of 2020 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 450, 354A(i)(iv), 376(2)(n) and 506(i) of IPC. 3. The petitioner is in custody from 1.7.2020 onwards. The prosecution case is that the petitioner went to the rented house of the de facto complainant on 9.6.2019 at about 12.00 pm and demanded the money borrowed from him. When the de facto complainant asked some time to pay the amount, the petitioner committed rape on her. Thereafter according to the victim, the petitioner went to the house of the de facto B.A.No.4516 of 2020 3 complainant on 5 days continuously. On all 5 days, the petitioner committed rape on her. After this incident, the petitioner went to the house of one Anitha and her husband Arun. According to her, the petitioner was introduced to her by them. Anitha and Arun asked her to file a complaint before the police. But she did not file any complaint. Thereafter on 30.6.2020 a First Information Statement is submitted based on which the above Crime is registered. 4.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a money transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. He also submitted that there are money transaction between the petitioner and the above mentioned Anitha and Arun. They refused to return the money borrowed from the petitioner. Without paying the amount, they are spreading false allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Annexure-A2 complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Aluva on 25.5.2020. The petitioner B.A.No.4516 of 2020 4 also filed a Writ Petition before this Court on 26.5.2020 alleging police harassment based on the complaint of the above mentioned Anitha and Arun. Thereafter the present First Information Statement is filed by the victim in this case on 30.6.2020. According to the petitioner, this is a false case foisted by the victim in this case and by the above mentioned Anitha and Arun. The petitioner is in custody from 1.7.2020. The counsel submitted that he is ready to abide any condition, if this Court granting him bail. 6. It is an admitted fact that the victim in this case is major. The petitioner is in custody from 1.7.2020. The petitioner put forward a case of false implication in this case. I do not want to make any comments about the case put forwarded by the petitioner. I carefully gone through the First Information Statement given by the victim. According to her, there was rape by the petitioner for 5 continuous days starting from 9.6.2020. The First Information Statement is given on 30.6.2020. It is also to be noted that the First Information Statement is filed after Annexure-A2 complaint filed by the B.A.No.4516 of 2020 5 petitioner and after the petitioner filed the Writ Petition before this Court. It is also to be noted that in the First Information Statement itself the victim admitted that she went to the house of Anitha and Arun after the incident. Annexure-A2 and the Writ Petition are filed by the petitioner alleging allegations against the above two persons. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of detention, I think the petitioner can be released on bail 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 Enforcement** B.A.No.4516 of 2020 6 **(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. 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 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 B.A.No.4516 of 2020 7 evidence. 3. 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. 4. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Edathala Police Station, till final report is filed in Crime No.548 of 2020. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m till final report is filed. For the purpose of appearance before the Investigating Officer, the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit of Edathala Police Station. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m till final report is filed. 7. If any of the above conditions are B.A.No.4516 of 2020 8 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** cms