Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted on stringent conditions with COVID...

Jackson @ Majesh, Manoj @ Manu and Hippolith v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No. 4994 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2020-09-17
Court Decision / Holding
Bail application allowed with the following directions: (1) Petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) if arrest proposed, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; (3) to co-operate with investigation and not attempt to influence witnesses; (4) not to leave India without court permission; (5) not to commit any similar offence; (6) to strictly abide by social distancing guidelines in wake of COVID-19; the court retains jurisdiction to cancel bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition
Bail granted on stringent conditions with COVID-19 safeguards and standard bail conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jackson @ Majesh
  • Manoj @ Manu
  • Hippolith

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • G. Priyadarsan Thampi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by three accused—Jackson alias Majesh, Manoj alias Manu, and Hippolyth—in Crime No. 560 of 2020, Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha. The petitioners face offences including criminal trespass (447 IPC), hurt with grievous injuries (324, 326 r/w 34 IPC), and 294(b). The prosecution alleges that on the night of 12 July 2020 the first accused trespassed into the complainant’s residence, abused him, and assaulted him with an iron pipe, causing a fracture; the wife and the complainant’s brother were also allegedly assaulted. The petitioners’ counsel contends that this is a case and counter-case: a counter case has been registered alleging 326 IPC as well, implying both sides were aggressors. It is argued that the petitioners are ready to abide by conditions and cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, note is made of the fracture but concedes the counter case exists with 326 IPC. After hearing both sides, the court, recognizing the case-and-counter-case dynamic and the ongoing COVID-19 considerations, allows bail on stringent conditions. The court cites COVID-19 related directives to minimize prison population and reiterates bail as the general rule, with imprisonment only as a last resort.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Sections 447, 294(b), 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (16) SCALE 870)
  • COVID-19 guidelines in prisons to minimize inmate population (Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case; Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020; and Full Bench directions in W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that this is essentially a case and counter case, with the counter case also alleging 326 IPC; they contend that neither the public interest nor the investigation justify detention beyond reasonable time. They stressed their willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions and to cooperate with the investigation, including appearance before the IO within stipulated timelines, and adherence to travel restrictions and social distancing norms.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting that the injured party sustained a fracture and that a counter case exists with 326 IPC; however, considering the overall circumstances, the court can balance the need for fair trial with the rights of the accused under COVID-19 guidelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In PrisonsSuo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020PositiveCited for directions to minimize prison population and implement social distancing guidelines in penitentiaries.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020PositiveFull Bench directions in this Court for minimizing number of inmates consistent with safety during COVID-19.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveStates the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception to secure 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 Jackson @ Majesh, Manoj @ Manu and Hippolith v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha 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** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.4994 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2136/2020 DATED 30-07-2020 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA** **CRIME NO.560/2020 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 JACKSON @ MAJESH AGED 36 YEARS ARESSERIL HOUSE, WARD NO.1, PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA - 688004 2 MANOJ @ MANU AGED 30 YEARS ARESSERIL HOUSE, WARD NO.1, PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA - 688004** **3 HIPPOLITH AGED 65 YEARS ARESSERIL HOUSE, WARD NO.1, PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA - 688004** **BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682031** **2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA - 688004** B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 2 **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ===================== B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 ===================== Dated this the 17[th] day of September, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are accused in crime No. 560 of 2020 Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 12.07.2020 at about 11.00 p.m., 1[st] accused criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and abused him. Thereafter, the accused inflicted grievous hurt to him using an iron pipe. It is alleged that, the 1[st] accused beat B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 4 on the left shoulder of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained fracture. The further allegations is that, the 1[st] accused beat the defacto complainant's wife and also his brother Joseph. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, this is a case and counter case. Annexure-2 is the FIR in the counter case. In the counter case, the offence alleged includes the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, actually, the defacto complainant and his party were the aggressors. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the injured in this case sustained a fracture. But the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that, there is a B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 5 counter case filed in which also the offence under Section 326 of IPC is added. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent condition. It is a case and counter case. There are allegations and counter allegations about the same incident. Which version is correct can not be decided by this Court, while considering an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that, it is a case and counter case, I think 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. B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 6 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 (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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only)_ B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 7 _each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;_ _3. 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;_ _4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The petitioners 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 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_ B.A.No. 4994 of 2020 8 _Covid 19 pandemic;_ 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/-) JUDGE** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,** LU