High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-12Bail granted for the petitioners with stringent...

Jamsheed and Others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 7301 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-11-12
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) if IO proposes arrest, petitioners to be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; (3) petitioners to appear as required and not induce or threaten witnesses; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; (5) petitioners shall not commit similar offences; (6) adhere to Covid-19 social distancing guidelines; (7) surrender passports or file an affidavit if none; (8) court can cancel bail for violation of any conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted for the petitioners with stringent conditions as described above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jamsheed
Sabeesh
Vishnu
Akhil
Sandeep C K
Amal
Sukeshlal
Bijin
Akhil Chandra
Athul P K

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Santharam P.
• Smt. Rekha Aravind
• Sri. Paul P. Abraham
• Sri. P. G. Gokulnath

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application concerns ten accused (Jamsheed, Sabeesh, Vishnu, Akhil, Sandeep C K, Amal, Sukeshlal, Bijin, Akhil Chandra, Athul P K) in Crime No.17 of 2020 registered with Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode. The petition was filed under Section 438 CrPC seeking bail. The offences alleged include sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 324, and 354 r/w 149 IPC, arising from an incident where about 20 individuals allegedly assembled with deadly weapons, trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house, restrained occupants, assaulted the complainant’s son, and the complainant herself, with one accused alleged to have outraged modesty. The petitioners’ counsel argued that only non-bailable offences are 452 and 354 IPC and that the 452 offence is not attracted since the accused went to the premises at the complainant’s invitation for mediation; they contended that 354 IPC is not made out. The Public Prosecutor argued that custodial interrogation is necessary. The court, after considering the arguments, held that the bail application could be allowed on stringent conditions, applying the general bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It directed appearance before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, compliance with investigation, travel restrictions, no inducements or threats, adherence to Covid-19 social distancing norms, passport surrender, and the court’s power to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 324, 354 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule, jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel contends that only non-bailable offences alleged are under Secs. 452 and 354 IPC. They submit that the accused had gone there at the invitation of the defacto complainant for mediation, and thus the 452 IPC offence is not attracted; they also submit that even if the facts are correct, the 354 IPC offence is not made out.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and that the gravity of the alleged offences warrants stringent scrutiny before release.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	The court relies on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, establishing the general framework for granting bail.
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited for social distancing and related directives guiding prison management during the pandemic; not a direct on-point ruling for the case.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited for the Full Bench directions on minimizing the number of inmates and related guidelines; used as supportive guidance rather than a direct statutory ratio.

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 Jamsheed and Others 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 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7301 OF 2020 CRIME NO.70/2020 OF Balussery Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**JAMSHEED**| |---|---| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**MEETHALE PADIYAKANDI**| ||**KOTTUR**| ||**673614**| |**2**|**SABEESH**| ||**AGED 40 YEARS**| ||**ARIKKALAYIL, PADIKANDI,**| ||**KOTTUR**| ||**673614**| |**3**|**VISHNU**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**CHAMMUKKARA MEETHAL, ULLIYERI**| ||**673620**| |**4**|**AKHIL**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**RAROTH ULLIYERI**| ||**673620**| |**5**|**SANDEEP C K**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**PEROOLI ULLIYERI**| ||**673620**| |**6**|**AMAL**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**IDAPPALASSERY ULLEYRI**| ||**673620**| |**7**|**SUKESHLAL**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS**| ||**CHAMMUNKARA MEETAL ULLIYERI**| ||**673620**| B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 2 **8 BIJIN AGED 29 YEARS KIZHAKKE KUNNOTH ULLIYERI 673620 9 AKHIL CHANDRA AGED 28 YEARS IDAPPALASSERY KUNIYIL ULLIYERI 673620 10 ATHUL P K AGED 26 YEARS CHAMMUNKARA ULLIYERI 673620 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM SRI.P.G.GOKULNATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7301 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 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 the accused in Crime No.17 of 2020 of Balussery Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 324, 354 r/w Section 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 17.1.2020 at 11 p.m., about 20 identifiable persons unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons with intent to commit a crime trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 4 restrained and forcefully pulled beaten with weapon and iron rod. It is alleged that they attacked the complainant's son who was sleeping inside of his house. It is also alleged that the complainant's son was dragged out of the house and then beaten. Further it is alleged that when the complainant trying to stop the assault, one of the accused assault her and even outraged her modesty. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 452 and 354 IPC. The counsel submitted that actually the petitioners went there as invited by the defacto complainant for mediation. The counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the offence under Section 452 IPC is not attracted. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 5 Section 354 IPC is also not made out. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners are the offence under Section 452 and 354 IPC. Whether those offences are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated. Considering the entire facts and circumstances 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 COVID19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)** and a Full Bench of this ## B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 6 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 (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. B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 7 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs,.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission B.A.No. 7301 OF 2020 8 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 Covid 19 pandemic. 7. Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Investigating Officer. If there is no passport, they will file an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating officer. 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. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-