High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-24Bail granted; bail application allowed with con...

Lakshmikutty, Jyothi P, Aswathi P and Ajith Balachandran v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasaragod

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.5791 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-24
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners must appear before the IO within 10 days for interrogation; upon arrest, they shall execute a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount; they shall appear as required; shall not leave India without permission; shall not commit similar offences; shall abide by COVID-19 guidelines; breach may lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; bail application allowed with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lakshmikutty
Jyothi P
Aswathi P
Ajith Balachandran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Vellarikundu Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu
• Smt. C.R. Saradamani
• Sri. Shahid Azeez
• Smt. Chandrakleha Sanu

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC concerns accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 354/2020 of Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasaragod. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners and other accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant, resulting in a fracture to her little finger; a counter case (Crime No. 381/2020) arises with similar allegations. The petitioners face a spectrum of offences including sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354, and 451 read with 149 IPC; later, section 325 IPC was added by the prosecution. The petitioners submit that the only non-bailable offence attributed to them in this case is 354 IPC and that they are ready to abide by stringent conditions for bail. The Public Prosecutor, while opposing bail, suggests that if bail is granted, it should be with stringent conditions to ensure investigation and public safety. After hearing, the court acknowledges the existence of a case and counter-case, does not comment on the merits, and grants bail under stringent conditions. It relies on the broad bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and cites COVID-19 related directions from the Supreme Court and this Court’s Full Bench to justify social-distancing measures in prisons. The order requires appearance before the IO within ten days, a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, compliance with travel restrictions, non-frivolous conduct, and strict adherence to COVID guidelines; violations permit cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCIPC sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354, 451 read with 149 IPCSection 325 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same; grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that this is a case and counter-case; the only non-bailable offence alleged against them is Section 354 IPC; they are willing to abide by stringent conditions and cooperate with the investigation, and seek bail. They asserted that there is no merit-based obstacle to grant bail and emphasized the right to a fair trial, given the COVID-19 context.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that if bail is granted, it should be with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation, investigation, and to prevent crime, with attention to the ongoing social distancing norms.

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 norms and directives to minimize prison population in the context of bail considerations.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is an exception, guiding the court to grant bail with conditions.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Cited for providing salutary COVID-19 related directions as a backdrop for prison-related decisions.

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 Lakshmikutty, Jyothi P, Aswathi P and Ajith Balachandran v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasaragod 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 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5791 OF 2020 CRIME NO.380/2020 OF Vellarikundu Police Station , Kasargod** |**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**LAKSHMIKUTTY**| |||**AGED 68 YEARS**| |||**WIFE OF BALACHANDRAN**| |||**RESIDING AT PERIYAL,**| |||**BIRIKKULAM, PARAPPA P.O**| |||**KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| |||**PIN-671533**| |**2**||**JYOTHI P**| |||**AGED 43 YEARS**| |||**WIFE OF SASIKUMAR K.V,**| |||**RESIDING AT VISAKHAM, CHAMAKKUZHI,**| |||**KINANOOR, PERIYANGANAM P O,**| |||**KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| |||**PIN-671314**| |**3**||**ASWATHI P**| |||**AGED 37 YEARS**| |||**WIFE OF GOPALAKRISHNAN,**| |||**RESIDING AT PERIYAL, PARAPPA,**| |||**KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| |||**PIN-671533**| |**4**||**AJITH BALACHANDRAN**| |||**AGED 38 YEARS**| |||**SON OF BALACHANDRAN P**| |||**RESIDING AT PERIYAL, BIRIKKULAM,**| |||**PARAPPA, KINANOOR,**| |||**KASARAGOD DISTRICT**| |||**PIN-671533**| |||**BY ADVS.**| |||**SRI.T.MADHU**| |||**SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI**| |||**SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ**| |||**SMT.CHANDRALEKHA SANU**| B.A.No.5791 of 2020 2 ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**| ||**KERALA, ERNAKULAM,**| ||**PIN-682031**| |**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| ||**VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**| ||**PIN-671533**| ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.5791 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.5791 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of September, 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 Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.354 of 2020 of Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasaragode. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354, 451 read with Section 149 IPC. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence u/s.325 IPC is also added subsequently. 3.The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant sustained a fracture on her little B.A.No.5791 of 2020 4 finger. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case and counter case. The present case is Crime No.380 of 2020 and the counter case is Crime No.381 of 2020. The counsel submitted that the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is Section 354 IPC. The counsel submitted that petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. 6.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But 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. It is a case and counter case. There are allegation and counter allegation about the same incident. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The only non bailable offence alleged B.A.No.5791 of 2020 5 against the petitioners in this case is under Section 354 IPC. Whether the offence u/s. 354 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 B.A.No.5791 of 2020 6 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. 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. 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) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. B.A.No.5791 of 2020 7 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 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 B.A.No.5791 of 2020 8 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** cms