High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-03Bail granted on stringent conditions.

Kunhumuhammed Kunhumuhammed v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-03
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed with stringent conditions: 1) bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties; 2) appearance before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m. until the final report; 3) not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Guruvayoor Police Station except for appearances; 4) cooperate with the investigation and not induce or threaten witnesses; 5) not leave India without the court's permission; 6) no commission of any offence similar to the alleged offence; 7) adhere to social distancing guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments; 8) bail can be cancelled for violation; The decision aligns with the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, supported by Supreme Court and COVID-19 prison guidelines.
Final Disposition: Bail granted on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KUNHUMUHAMMED KUNHUMUHAMMED

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. P. Parvathy
• Sri. Saijo Hassan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Renjith T.R., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail order under Section 439 CrPC in Bail Application No.4626 of 2020 arising from Crime No.124/2020 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioner, Kunhumuhammed Kunhumuhammed, aged 52, a Madrassa teacher, is accused of offences under POSCO, including Section 10 and Section 9(1)(l)(i)(m)(p), IPC Section 324, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, in relation to sexual abuse of a 12-year-old student. He surrendered on 9 July 2020 and has been in custody since then. The petitioner’s counsel urged grant of bail under CrPC Section 439, stating willingness to comply with conditions and referencing Annexure A1 that directed surrender. The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail but suggested stringent conditions if granted, noting another separate case with similar allegations. The court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, emphasized the admissibility of the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and observed the petitioner’s extended detention as a factor. Citing the Supreme Court decisions in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and the COVID-19 prison guidelines, and a Full Bench direction in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions. The operative directions include a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, regular appearance on Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m., restriction from entering Guruvayoor jurisdiction except for police appearances, cooperation with investigation, non-violation of travel, compliance with COVID-19 safety norms, and a clause allowing cancellation of bail for violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 10, 9(1)(l)(i)(m)(p)Indian Penal Code, Section 324Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act – Section 75

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was properly filed after an earlier Section 438 order. The petitioner surrendered on 9.7.2020 and is willing to comply with any conditions. The seriousness of the allegations was acknowledged, but the court was urged to grant bail with stringent conditions given the period of detention and the pendency of the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail and urged adherence to stringent conditions if bail were granted, noting that another case with similar allegations exists against the petitioner and emphasizing the need to ensure fair investigation and avoid possible influence or tampering with witnesses.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing measures in prisons and to minimize inmate numbers as part of bail considerations during the COVID-19 context.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the proposition that bail is the rule and jail the exception, shaping the court's approach to grant bail.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions on minimizing prison populations and following COVID-19 safety norms, supporting the present bail decision.

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 Kunhumuhammed Kunhumuhammed 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 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4626 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.124/2020 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ## **KUNHUMUHAMMED KUNHUMUHAMMED** **AGED 52 YEARS** **S/O KUNHUMARAKKAR, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, PORKULAM DESOM AND VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR PIN-680503** **BY ADVS. SMT.P.PARVATHY SRI.SAIJO HASSAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULM PIN-682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2020** **...** **This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.124 of 2020 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 10, 9(l)(i)(m)(p) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act), Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The petitioner surrendered on 9.7.2020 and he is in custody from 9.7.2020 onwards.** **3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner is a Madrassa teacher. The victim is a student of the Madrassa. He is aged 12 years. The prosecution alleged that, the petitioner herein on more than one** **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 3** **occasions sexually abused the minor boy by touching his genital and thereafter subjected to physical assault.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner had filed a bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before this Court and this Court as per Annexure A1 order, directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer. The petitioner surrendered on 9.7.2020. He is in custody from 9.7.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor, even though opposed the bail application, submitted that, if this Court grants him bail, the same may be, on stringent conditions. The learned public prosecutor also submitted that, one more case is registered against the petitioner with similar allegations.** ## **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 4** **7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the period of detention of the petitioner, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner has got a case that, he was strict in his Madrassa and therefore, the children are against him. Hence, a false case is registered against the petitioner. But, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner at this stage. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. Till the investigation in the above crime is completed, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of the Guruvayoor Police Station. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and the period of detention, 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 COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1** ## **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 5** **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 and the period of detention, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:** ## **1. The petitioner shall be** **released on bail on executing a bond** ## **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 6** **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 on all Mondays' and Fridays' at 10 a.m. till a final report in Crime No.124/2020 of Guruvayoor Police Station is filed.** **3. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Guruvayoor Police Station except for the purposes of appearing before the Investigating Officer.** **4. 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** ## **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 7** **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;** **5. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;** **6. 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;** **7. 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;** **8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the** **B.A. NO.4626 OF 2020 8** **jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **Sd/-** **pkk** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**