Janeesh @ Chikku and Jaouhar v. The State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1949 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.421/2019 OF TANUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 JANEESH @ CHIKKU AGED 25 YEARS S/O.KUNHUTTY, ALANGADTTIL HOUSE, TALANALOOR AMSOM, PAKARA DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2 JAOUHAR AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KUNHU MUHAMMED, ALANGADTTIL HOUSE, TALANALOOR AMSOM, PAKARA DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.K.K.NESNA** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** ## **BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 2 ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 14th day of August 2020** ... **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.421 of 2019 of Tanur Police Station, Malappuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 436, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, on 31.10.2019 while the accused and the defacto complainant were attending a marriage of the relative of the defacto complainant at Nellikkal Auditorium at Tanalur, the accused set fire to crackers and thrown towards the parking area. When the defacto complainant interfered, there was an** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 3 **altercation followed by push and pull. On the same day at night, the accused along with the other accused in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and thrown crackers. There is a damage to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the house of the defacto complainant.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. There was some wordy altercation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.** **6. The learned public prosecutor, even though, opposed this bail application, submitted that, if this Court granting bail to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 4 **bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 436 IPC. The alleged damage is of Rs.15,000/-. There can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit the amount subject to the result of the case. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is 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** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 5 **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) each with two** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 6 **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** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 7 **suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;** **6. After releasing of the petitioners by the Investigating Officer, the petitioners will deposit an amount of Rs.7,500/- each before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The amount deposited will be subject to the final decision in the above case.** **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;** **8. If any of the above** **conditions are violated by the** **petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in** B.A. NO.1949 OF 2020 8 **accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **Sd/-** **pkk** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**