High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-01Bail granted to the petitioner subject to strin...

K.M. Abdul Nazar alias Nazar v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 6163 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-10-01
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail on the following stringent conditions: (1) Bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (2) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as required and shall cooperate with the investigation, without inducing or threatening any witness. (3) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court. (4) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the one he is accused of or suspected of. (5) The petitioner shall adhere to social distancing guidelines and COVID-19 related measures. (6) The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Chandera Police Station for two months except for appearing before the IO. (7) If any condition is violated, the bail may be cancelled. SD/– P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.M. Abdul Nazar alias Nazar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu
• Smt. C.R. Saradamani

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ajith Murali, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail petition concerns Crime No. 482 of 2020 registered at Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod, in which the petitioner, K.M. Abdul Nazar alias Nazar, is accused of offences under IPC sections 498A, 324, 452, 436 and 308. The prosecution alleges that on 15 July 2020 he assaulted his wife with an iron rod and, on 20 July 2020, trespassed into the house and set it on fire using petrol while she, her son and her sister's son were inside. The petitioner was arrested on 20 July 2020 and is in custody for around 72 days. This is the second bail application; the earlier one was not granted and was withdrawn. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, stressing the seriousness of offences, including 308 and 436, and the risk of tampering with witnesses or reoffence given the domestic relationship. After hearing, the learned judge noted the detention period and the victim residing within Chandera jurisdiction, and, in light of COVID-19 social distancing concerns, invoked directions from the Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons and the Kerala High Court Full Bench directions in W.P(C) No. 9400 of 2020. The bail is therefore allowed on stringent conditions: bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO, restriction from entering Chandera Police Station for two months except for IO appearances, adherence to COVID-19 guidelines, and a condition not to leave India without court permission. Violation can lead to cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSection 498A IPCSection 324 IPCSection 452 IPCSection 436 IPCSection 308 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Grant of bail is the rule, refusal is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second bail application; the petitioner has been in custody since 20.07.2020 and has already waited a long period. It was argued that the present global situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates minimizing prison populations; social-distancing norms must be followed, and a calibrated bail with stringent conditions could ensure fair trial and safety. The petitioner�s counsel emphasized that the earlier bail application was not granted and was withdrawn, and that the accused is not shown to be a flight risk if proper conditions are imposed. The court was urged to grant bail with strict conditions including bond, sureties, appearance before IO, non-entry into the Chandera jurisdiction except for IO appearances, and compliance with public health guidelines to prevent COVID-19 spread.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the grounds that the offences are serious, involving 308 and 436 IPC, and that the de facto complainant is his wife. It was argued that granting bail might cause harassment or tampering with the investigation and could enable the accused to repeat offences. Given the domestic relationship and nature of the alleged offences, there is a legitimate concern of interference with witnesses and potential threat to the complainant. Hence, bail should be restricted and conditional, rather than granted freely, to ensure ongoing investigation and trial integrity.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Referenced to reiterate the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; supports granting bail with conditions.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Used to justify social distancing and COVID-19 related administrative guidelines in prisons as part of bail considerations.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions cited to support minimizing prison populations and implementing salutary measures during the pandemic.

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 K.M. Abdul Nazar alias Nazar v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District 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 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6163 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.M.ABDUL NAZAR ALIAS NAZAR,AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF C.M.MOIDU, RESIDING AT SACHU MANZIL, KUZHINJADI, CHERUVATHUR, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-671313** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN-671310** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6163 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6163 of 2020 -------------------------------Dated this the 1[st ] day of October, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.482 of 2020 of Chandera Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 452, 436 and 308 IPC. 3.The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant is legally wedded wife of the accused and their marriage was solemnized about 26 years back. On 15.7.2020 the accused caused hurt on the de facto complainant by beating on her head with an iron rod and when he attempted to beat her B.A.No.6163 of 2020 3 again, she dissuaded the attempt. Further on 20.7.2020 at about 8.30 a.m, the accused with a criminal intention to commit the offence, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, caused mischief by setting fire to the house using petrol when de facto complainant, her son and her sister's son were inside the house. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 452, 436 and 308 IPC. The petitioner is arrested on 20.7.2020. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. The counsel submitted that when the earlier bail application came up for consideration, this Court was not inclined to grant bail. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew the same. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 20.7.2020. 6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner B.A.No.6163 of 2020 4 committed very serious offences including offences under Section 308 and 436 IPC. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail because the petitioner will again create problem to the de facto complainant. 7. After hearing both sides and considering the detention period of the petitioner, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner was arrested on 20.7.2020. The petitioner filed a bail application earlier and this Court after hearing the bail application in length was refused to grant bail to the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner withdrew the bail application. Now, the petitioner is in custody for around 72 days. But the apprehension raised by the Public Prosecutor is also to be noted. The victim in this case is residing within the jurisdiction of Chandera Police Station. Therefore, there can a direction to the petitioner not to enter the Chandera Police Station for a period of two months except B.A.No.6163 of 2020 5 for the purpose of appearing before the Investigating Officer. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the detention period of the petitioner, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 9. 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. 10. 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 B.A.No.6163 of 2020 6 and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 11. 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on - executing a bond for Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. 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, 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 B.A.No.6163 of 2020 7 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Chandera Police Station for a period of two months from today except for the purpose of appearing before the Investigating Officer in connection with the B.A.No.6163 of 2020 8 investigation of the case. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. SD/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms