High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-30Bail Granted with stringent conditions under Se...

Johnson PV, Jibin Johns and Moly Johnson v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.7816 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-11-30
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed; bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions: (1) appearance before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) after interrogation, if arrest is contemplated, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount each; (3) continued cooperation with investigation; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without Court permission; (5) shall not commit similar offences; (6) shall abide by state and central guidelines on social distancing due to COVID‑19; (7) violation of any condition can lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional Court.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted with stringent conditions under Section 438 CrPC

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Johnson PV
Jibin Johns
Moly Johnson

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Visal Ajayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Renjith T.R., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by three accused—Johnson PV, Jibin Johns and Moly Johnson—regarding Crime No. 1772/2020 of Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam. The offences alleged include Section 498A IPC, Section 294(b) IPC, Sections 354, 323 and 341 IPC, and Section 114 r/w Section 34 IPC. The prosecution contends harassment by the in‑laws against the defacto complainant, though the husband’s involvement is not asserted. The petitioners’ counsel urges that, even if the allegations are accepted, the offence under 498A IPC is not made out, and the other offences are largely bail‑worthy; the contention also highlights that the incident concerned the defacto complainant’s attempt to accompany her mother to the Tamil Nadu government department for documents related to a dying‑in harness scheme. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but concedes that if bail is granted, stringent conditions should apply. The Court, reiterating the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considering COVID‑19 related social distancing directives, grants bail subject to strict conditions. The order requires appearance before the IO within ten days, a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, compliance with investigation needs, non‑travel abroad without court permission, and adherence to health and safety guidelines; violation may lead to cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 498A IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 354 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 114 r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (basic jurisprudence relating to bail)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 498A IPC is not made out in this case. All other offences alleged are bail‑able. The argument further contended that the allegation under Section 354 IPC is not made out given the facts, including the complainant’s mother’s death and the complainant’s plan to visit her mother’s workplace for papers for a dying‑in harness scheme. The petitioners are prepared to abide by stringent conditions and co‑operate with the investigation, including appearance for interrogation and no inducement of witnesses.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail, noting that the allegations target the in‑laws rather than the husband, and framing the grant of bail with stringent conditions as appropriate to prevent abuse of the process and to ensure fair trial, especially in light of the ongoing COVID‑19 situation and risk in prisons.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing norms in prisons and related directions to minimize inmate numbers.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions for minimizing inmates and enforcing COVID‑19 related guidelines in prisons.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Affirms bail as the rule and jail as the exception, guiding the court’s approach to grant of bail.

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 Johnson PV, Jibin Johns and Moly Johnson 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** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7816 OF 2020 CRIME NO.1772/2020 OF Kunnicode Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**JOHNSON PV**| |---|---| ||**AGED 51 YEARS**| ||**PANCHIVILA,KIZHAKKETHIL,**| ||**CHEKKUVARACKAL, KUNNICODE,KOLLAM RURAL,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT ,**| ||**691508**| |**2**|**JIBIN JOHNS**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**PANCHIVILA,KIZHAKKETHIL,**| ||**CHEKKUVARACKAL, KUNNICODE,KOLLAM RURAL,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT ,**| ||**691508**| |**3**|**MOLY JOHNSON**| ||**AGED 51 YEARS**| ||**PANCHIVILA,KIZHAKKETHIL,**| ||**CHEKKUVARACKAL, KUNNICODE,KOLLAM RURAL,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT ,**| ||**691508**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN**| |**RESPONDENT/STATE**<br>**:**|| ||**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**682031**| B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 2 ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7816 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 30[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 accused in Crime No.1772/2020 of Kunnicode Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 354, 323, 341, 114 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 4 who are the in-laws of the defacto complainant mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 498A IPC is not made out in this case. The counsel submitted that all other offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable offences. The counsel submitted that the offence under Section 354 IPC is also not made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. The counsel submitted that the allegation in the F.I.statement is that the defacto complainant's mother died and the mother of the defacto complainant was working in the Government Department of Tamil Nadu. When the defacto complainant want to go to her mother's B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 5 work place for submitting certain papers for getting dying-in harness scheme appointment, the petitioners resisted the same. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no allegation against the husband of the defacto complainant. The allegation is mainly against the in-laws of the defacto complainant. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the matrimonial relationship between the husband and the defacto complainant is in existence even now. This complaint is filed against the in-laws of the defacto complainant. I don't want to B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 6 make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and 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 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, B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 7 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 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 B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 8 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 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the B.A.No. 7816 OF 2020 9 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-