Jayakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6864 OF 2020** ## **CRIME NO.1930/2020 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **JAYAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 26 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, DEVAKI NIVAS, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA 690506** **BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 4th day of November 2020** … **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1930 of 2020 of Mangalapuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, on 7.10.2020 at about 1 a.m. in the early morning, the petitioner trespassed into the room of the defcto complainant and enquired about the location of a switch board and further forcefully entered into her bedroom and thereafter had sexual intercourse. It is also alleged that, the petitioner threatened her saying** ## **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 3** **that, if she reveal this incident to her husband, she will be killed. Hence, the petitioner committed the said offence.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner was residing in an apartment owned by the defacto complainant. The petitioner obtained a room through 'OLX' from the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner and the defacto complainant were residing in adjacent rooms from 5.10.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner and the defacto complainant became friends and they used to chat in Whatsapp. The counsel submitted that, the incident is not happened as alleged by the defacto complainant. If it is happened, according to the counsel, there will not be cordial relationship between the petitioner and the victim. The counsel bring to my notice the chat** ## **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 4** **history which is produced as Annexure A1. There are chat history between the petitioner and the defacto complainant from 7.10.2020 onwards. The alleged incident in this case happened on 7.10.2020 at 1 a.m. A perusal of chat history will show that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was cordial.** **6. In the event of such a contention raised by the petitioner, I directed the learned public prosecutor to get instructions about the chat history. The investigating officer submitted that, they were not able to conduct investigation about the same. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged 26 years and the victim is aged 36 years. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is allowed on** ## **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 5** ## **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 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** ## **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 6** **above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:** **1. The petitioner 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 petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;** **3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not,** ## **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 7** **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 petitioner shall not leave** **India without permission of the Court;** **5. The petitioner shall not** **commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;** **6. 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;** **7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the** **B.A. NO.6864 OF 2020 8** **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**