Krishnakumar B and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.6950 OF 2020 CRIME NO.2442/2020 OF Karunaagapally Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**KRISHNAKUMAR B**| |---|---| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**ANEESH BHAVANAM, VENGARA, THODIYOOR P.O,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**690523**| |**2**|**SHYJU**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS**| ||**SHYJU BHAVANAM, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**690523**| |**3**|**VINEESH MON @ PRASAD**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**690523**| |**4**|**SHIBU**| ||**AGED 34 YEARS**| ||**KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VENGARA, THODIYOOR P.O,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**690523**| |**5**|**SAYIKUMAR**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS**| ||**KADDAKARA KIZHAKKATHIL, MUZHANGODI, VENGARA,**| ||**THODIYOOR P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**690523**| |**6**|**BIBIN B**| ||**AGED 23 YEARS**| ||**BIBIN BHAVANAM, VENGARA MURI, THODIYOOR P.O,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM**| ||**690523**| B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 2 **7 VAISAL KUTTAN AGED 23 YEARS VETTITHARA THEKKATHIL, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690523** **8 VAISHAK OMANAKUTTAN AGED 23 YEARS VETTITHARA THEKKATHIL, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690523 9 ANUMON P U AGED 31 YEARS MUDEETHARAYIL, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690523** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA SMT.ANJANA KANNATH BY SHYJU(PARTY IN PERSON)** ## **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 02.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** -------------------------------- B.A.No.6950 of 2020 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd] 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.2442 of 2020 of Karunagappally Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 294 (b), 324, 326, 427, 447, 354, 506 & 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. The offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also alleged. 3. The allegation is that on 3.5.2020, at about 2.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant and his friend B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 4 Anu, were engaged in chatting with each other, near the Marthoma Church at Plavila, the accused persons had come there and enquired about one Vipin and when the defacto complainant asked the accused persons had threatened the defacto complainant and assaulted Anu and when the defacto complainant intervened, he also was assaulted and due to his enmity, on the same day, at about 3 p.m., all the accused persons had trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant and by uttering to kill the defacto complainant, the 3[rd] accused in the crime, using a sword, had assaulted on the left foot of defacto complainant, inflicting injury, the first accused, using a wooden reaper, had assaulted on the head and body of the defacto complainant and the other accused persons, using bricks had assaulted him and in addition, all the accused persons had kicked and fisted the defacto complainant, using hands and leg, inflicting injuries on different parts of the body of the defacto B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 5 complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case registered based on private complaint filed before the magistrate court which was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a delay of three months in filing the private complaint. The counsel submitted that it is a case and counter case. The main case is also registered with offence under Section 326 IPC. 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, the offence under Section 307 IPC is also made out. Simply because a private complaint is filed and case is registered this Court may not grant bail to the ## B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 6 petitioners. The investigation is going on. The Public Prosecutor submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The present crime is registered based on a private complaint filed before the magistrate court which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Before that, Crime No.1657/2020 is registered against the defacto complainant in this case in which the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC is also alleged. According to the counsel it is a case and counter case. The private complaint is filed after about three months from the alleged date of incident. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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 B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 7 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. 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: B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 8 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 and when required. The petitioners shall cooperate 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. B.A.No. 6950 OF 2020 9 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 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/-