High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-01Granted bail

MANOJ AGED 24 YEARS S/O JOSE v STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. No. 6194 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-10-01
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner is released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for like sum, subject to conditions: (1) appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; (2) not to induce or threaten any witness; (3) not to leave India without court permission; (4) not to commit a similar offence; (5) to comply with Covid-19 distancing guidelines; (6) not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Kadinamkulam Police Station until the victim’s examination is completed, with permission to attend court within the same jurisdiction; (7) the jurisdictional court may cancel bail if any condition is violated. The court also noted the need for social distancing in prisons and invoked Supreme Court and Full Bench directions in this regard.
Final Disposition: Granted bail

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MANOJ AGED 24 YEARS S/O JOSE, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM HOUSE, RAHATHU ROAD, CHANNANKARA DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695303

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Renjith T.R., PP
• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Manoj, the 7th accused in Crime No. 615 of 2020 registered at Kadinamkulam Police Station, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that seven accused, including Manoj, conspired to commit rape and gang rape of the de facto complainant (wife of the 5th accused) after administering liquor to her; the victim and her child were allegedly assaulted at various locations, with offences under multiple IPC sections (120B, 366, 323, 324, 328, 394, 354B) and 376(d) read with 34 IPC. Manoj has been in custody since 5.6.2020, and this is his second bail application; earlier bail was rejected. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of bail derailing the investigation, especially as CP No. 45 of 2020 is pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The defense argued that Manoj is 24 and willing to abide by conditions. The court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but noted the extended detention (over 100 days) and the pandemic context. Relying on Supreme Court and Full Bench directions concerning COVID-19 and prison population, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, restrictions on travel, and a prohibition on entering the Kadinamkulam police jurisdiction until victim examination is completed, along with compliance with distancing norms. The bail is framed as an exception to ensure a fair trial under the rule that bail is the norm.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSections 120B, 366, 323, 324, 328, 394, 354B and 376(d) read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Manoj has been in custody since 5.6.2020; the current detention exceeds 108 days, and this is a second bail application. He highlighted Manoj’s age (24) and willingness to comply with conditions. It was urged that stringent bail conditions can safeguard the investigation, protect witnesses, and ensure a fair trial, especially given the ongoing pandemic context and the need to follow social distancing norms. The applicant requested bail with appropriate conditions to prevent any risk to the victim or witnesses and to avoid prolonged incarceration without trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasising the seriousness of the offences and the likelihood that bail could impede the ongoing investigation, noting that CP No.45 of 2020 is pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate. He argued that the accused, including Manoj, participated in a criminal conspiracy to commit gang rape after administering liquor to the victim, and that detention is necessary to ensure cooperation and to prevent tampering or further offences. Given the gravity and premeditated nature of the crimes, he urged continued custody.

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 inside prisons and related directives during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reinforce the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception to ensure fair trial.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions from this Court regarding minimizing prison population and related safeguards during the pandemic.

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 MANOJ AGED 24 YEARS S/O JOSE 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** **THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6194 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1617/2020 DATED 11-09-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM** ## **CRIME NO.615/2020 OF Kadinamkulam Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER:** **MANOJ AGED 24 YEARS S/O. JOSE, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDOM HOUSE, RAHATHU ROAD, CHANNANKARA DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695303** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6194 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6194 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of October, 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 7[th] accused in Crime No.615 of 2020 of Kadinamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 366, 323, 324, 328, 394, 354(B) and 376(d) read with 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is like this:- The defacto complainant is the wife of 5th accused. On 04.06.2020 at about 04.00 p.m. the 5th accused took the defacto complainant and her children to the residence of 6[th] accused situated at Vettuthura in Kadinamkulam village. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 consumed liquor and thereafter accused No.5 forcefully B.A.No.6194 of 2020 3 administered liquor to the defacto complainant. Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 & 7 joined with accused No.5 and entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit rape on the defacto complainant. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 & 7 took the defacto complainant and her child to a lonely place at Channankara and committed gang rape on the defacto complainant. They brutally assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries on her private parts. The accused Nos. 2 & 3 assaulted the minor son of the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offence. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 5.6.2020 onwards. Now he is in custody for more than 108 days. The counsel submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. As per Annexure-A3 order, this Court dismissed the bail application. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail. The counsel submitted B.A.No.6194 of 2020 4 that the petitioner is only aged 24 years. 6. The Public Prosecutor very seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case in which the accused should face trial in detention. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are very serious. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and the other accused administered alcohol to the victim and thereafter committed the offence. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. 7. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report is already filed and the matter is pending as CP No.45 of 2020 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. During this pandemic situation it may not be possible to conduct the trial immediately. Moreover, I also consider the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 100 days. I also consider the fact that the petitioner is only 7[th] accused in this case. But there can be a condition in the bail that the petitioner will not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kadinamkulam Police Station till B.A.No.6194 of 2020 5 the examination of the victim in this case before the trial court. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the detention period of the petitioner, 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 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 B.A.No.6194 of 2020 6 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on - executing 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. 2. 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. B.A.No.6194 of 2020 7 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kadinamkulam Police Station, till the examination of the victim in the case during the trial before the Court is over. But I make it clear that the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit of the trial court and committal court for appearance before the Court, even if it is within the jurisdiction of B.A.No.6194 of 2020 8 Kadinamkulam Police Station. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 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, JUDGE** cms