High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-04Bail Granted

Lincy Lalu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No.1439 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions: petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days for interrogation; if arrest proposed, release on bail with bond Rs.50,000 and two solvent sureties; petitioner to appear before IO as required; not to leave India without court permission; not to commit any similar offence; to strictly follow government social distancing guidelines; to appear before IO every Monday at 10 a.m. until final report is filed; jurisdictional court may cancel bail for any violation. Order clarifies applicability to petitioner only; 1st accused’s bail to be considered separately if filed.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lincy Lalu

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. J. Santhosh (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Ajith Murali, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Lincy Lalu, accused No. 4, in Crime No. 73 of 2020 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station. The FIR alleges that on 25-01-2020, the petitioner, along with co-accused, restrained the complainant and his brother and stabbed them with a knife, with offences including sections 294(b), 341, 323, 326, 307 and 506 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioner, a 19-year-old girl, contends that the allegations against her are not correct, no specific overt act is alleged against her, and she is ready to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The State opposes bail, arguing that the injured party sustained multiple serious injuries (11 noted) and the first accused is at large. After hearing both sides, the court opines that given the petitioner’s youth, lack of overt act attributed specifically to her, and the broader COVID-19 context, a guarded grant of bail is appropriate, while keeping stringent conditions. The court references the Supreme Court’s guidance in a COVID-19 prison case and a Kerala High Court Full Bench decision directing minimal inmate presence. The bail is granted with eight conditions, including appearance before IO within 10 days, bond Rs 50,000 with two sureties, prohibition on leaving India without court permission, ongoing cooperation with investigation, compliance with social distancing norms, and weekly appearances for monitoring until final report. The 1st accused’s bail remains to be considered separately if filed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 CrPCSections 294(b), 341, 323, 326, 307, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same – grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception for a fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner, a 19-year-old girl, contends that the allegations against her are not correct; no specific overt act is attributed to her; she is willing to comply with conditions and subject herself to interrogation and monitoring; she asserts that bail should be granted to enable fair trial and prevent needless pre-trial detention, especially in light of COVID-19 concerns.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the armed and injurious conduct of the accused, including 11 injuries, warrants keeping the accused in custody; the 1st accused is absconding; granting bail could jeopardize the investigation and public safety; hence bail should be refused or tightly conditioned.

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 directions in prisons and to minimize inmate numbers in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the proposition that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directions for minimizing prison population during COVID-19 cited as background guidance.

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 Lincy Lalu 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 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1439 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.73/2020 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:** **LINCY LALU AGED 19 YEARS W/O. LALU, KANNANTHARA VELI HOUSE, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **R1 BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 4th day of August 2020** … **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the 4[th] accused in Crime No.73 of 2020 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 326, 307, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.01.2020 at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioner along with the remaining accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his brother and stabbed them with a knife.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 3** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is the 4[th] accused in this case. The petitioner is a girl aged 19 years. The allegations against the petitioner are not correct. The counsel submitted that, no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants her bail.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the injured in this case sustained very serious injuries all over the body. According to the public prosecutor, there are 11 injuries. It is submitted that, the 1[st] accused is absconding.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner is a girl aged 19 years. Serious overt act is attributed against the other accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that, she also participated in the incident. The** ## **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 4** **alleged incident happened on 25.1.2020. This bail application was filed on 20.2.2020. Even now, the police was not able to arrest the petitioner. Probably, the police may be waiting for the disposal of this bail application. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, the petitioner is a girl aged 19 years and also considering the fact that, no overt act is alleged against the petitioner, I think, this bail application can be allowed. I make it clear that, this order is applicable only to the petitioner herein and the bail application of the 1[st] accused will be considered separately if any such application is filed by the 1[st] accused.** **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 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued** ## **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 5** **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:** **1. The petitioner shall appear** **before the Investigating Officer** **within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** ## **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 6** **2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, she 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;** **3. 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 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;** **4. The petitioner shall not** ## **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 7** **leave India without permission of the Court;** ## **5. 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;** ## **6. 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;** **7. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays' at 10 a.m. till a final report in Crime No.73 of 2020 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam is filed.** **8. If any of the above** **conditions are violated by the** **B.A. No.1439 of 2020 8** **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** **pkk** **JUDGE**