High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-12Bail granted with conditions

Libu@Kannan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA NO.2714 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-12
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Additional directions include providing the address and phone number where the petitioner will reside, forwarding the bail bond to the jurisdictional Court, reporting to the Station House Officer on release and thereafter, appearing before the Investigating Officer as required, cooperating with the investigation, and adhering to social distancing and other COVID-19 guidelines. If any condition is violated, the bail can be cancelled.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Libu@Kannan

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Pin – 682 031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv M. Kiranlal Rajesh Varkala

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala represented by Sri Ajith Murali & Sri Santhosh Peter (Sr)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Libu@Kannan, aged 19, the sole accused in Crime No. 54 of 2020 of Anchuthengu Police Station, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC after about 88 days in custody. The prosecution charges the accused with offences under sections 450 and 376 IPC, and Section 4 read with 3(a), 6 read with 5j(ii)(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The alleged incident is said to have occurred on 23 December 2019, with the complaint filed on 14 February 2020, and the victim is reportedly 17 years old, now pregnant. The defence argued that the accused and the victim were in a love affair and that the real issues require trial, noting the delay in reporting and absence of a final police report. The accused contends there is no immediate danger to society and that, at 19, he is unlikely to flee; the victim’s age and the nature of charges merit careful consideration but do not render bail futile. The State opposed unconditional bail but suggested imposing stringent conditions given the prolonged custody. In the COVID-19 context, the court relied on Supreme Court and High Court directions to minimize prison population. Ultimately, bail was allowed with conditions and monitoring to safeguard the investigation and public health guidelines, while recognizing the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 441 Cr.P.C.Section 450 IPCSection 376 IPCSection 4 read with 3(a), 6 read with 5j(ii)(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Presumption of innocence and right to fair trial; opportunity to secure fair trial.
COVID-19 related directives to minimize prison population and social distancing in prisons.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused is 19 years old and has already spent about 88 days in custody. The alleged offence occurred on 23 December 2019, with the complaint on 14 February 2020. The victim is stated to be 17 years old; the petitioner and the victim were reportedly in a love relationship, and the alleged incident and delay in reporting are matters to be probed at trial. The defense urged consideration of COVID-19 safety concerns and directed social distancing in prisons per Supreme Court directions, arguing that bail with reasonable conditions would ensure fair trial without unduly compromising investigation. It was urged that no final report has been filed and that the accused does not pose a flight risk. The court was asked to grant bail with standard conditions and monitoring measures to ensure appearance and cooperation while respecting the rights of the accused.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail, contending that the offences involve a minor and serious allegations under IPC and POCSO. However, acknowledging the prolonged custody of about 88 days, the Public Prosecutor suggested that if bail is granted, it should be subject to stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation, prevent witness tampering, and ensure attendance, while also considering COVID-19 related directives to keep prison populations down.

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 and other directives in prisons to minimize inmate numbers during the pandemic.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions from Kerala High Court on minimizing prison population during lockdown.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Affirms bail as the rule and emphasizes fair trial; informs the court’s approach to bail jurisprudence.

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 Libu@Kannan 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** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 22ND VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2714 OF 2020** (In Crime No.54/2020 of Anchuthengu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuran District) ## **Petitioner/Sole Accused:** Libu@Kannan, aged 19 years, S/o Biju, Karichattimoolaputhenveettil,kettupura, Anchuthengu,Nalparavattom Kadakkavoor,Thiruvananthapuram District BY Adv M.Kiranlal Rajesh Varkala ## **- Respondent/Complainant State:** State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Pin – 682 031. By P.P. Sri.Ajith Murali & Santhosh Peter(Sr) **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.2714 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of May, 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.54 of 2020 of Anchuthengu Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 450, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with 3(a), 6 read with 5j(ii)(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, POCSO Act). Petitioner was arrested on 15.2.2020 and he is in custody. 3.The allegation is that the petitioner aged 19 years administered some noxious drink to the victim and when she lost her consciousness committed sexual B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 3 assault on her. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is now pregnant. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he is only aged 19. He submitted that he is in custody from 15.2.2020 and now 88 days over. He also submitted that, the alleged incident happened on 23.12.2019 and the complaint was submitted only on 14.2.2020. He has got a further case that the petitioner and the victim girl were in a love affair. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the petitioner is in custody for about 88 days, stringent conditions may be imposed, if this court grant bail to the petitioner. 6.After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I think this bail application can be allowed. The petitioner is aged 19 B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 4 and the victim is aged 17. There is a case to the petitioner that, the petitioner and the victim were in love and he proposed to marry her. He also submitted that, the alleged incident had happened on 23.12.2019 and the complaint was filed only on 14.2.2020. These are matters to be proved at the time of trial. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody for about 88 days. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no final report is filed in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed. 7. 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 B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 5 **W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020** issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. 8. 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. 9. 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 Superintendent of Jail concerned B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 6 where the petitioner is incarcerated is directed to release the petitioner on bail on executing a self bond ensuring that he will appear before the Court concerned as and when required, if he is not in detention in any other case. It is further directed that the Superintendent of Jail should get the bail bond from the petitioner as stipulated in Section 441 Cr.P.C. 2. The Superintendent of Jail concerned shall also get the phone number and the address at which the petitioner would be residing after his release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioner will forthwith forward the bail bond obtained from the petitioner to the jurisdictional Court. 4. The petitioner immediately after B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 7 release from the prison, report before the Station House Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station and shall furnish his phone number and the place where he is going to reside. The Station House Officer concerned shall keep a vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioner and shall ensure that the petitioner does not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 6. The petitioner shall within one week from the commencement of the functioning of the jurisdictional court, if the court is not B.A.NO.2714 OF 2020 8 functioning at present, execute 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. 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 and other directions in the wake of declared lockdown. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** ska