High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-20Bail applications allowed with conditions as st...

Mathew vs. State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos.1302/2020 and 2239/2020)

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. No. 1302 of 2020; Bail Appl. No. 2239 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-20
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the bail applications with stringent conditions, including: appearance before the IO within ten days, interrogation, potential arrest to be followed by bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; ongoing appearance as required; prohibition on leaving India without court permission; prohibition on committing similar offences; adherence to government and state COVID-19 guidelines on social distancing; and court can cancel bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed with conditions as stated in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mathew
Jayin A.M.

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad District
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Ramesh P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Renjith T.R., PP
• Sri Santosh Peter, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

These bail applications under Section 438 CrPC pertain to Crime No.412/2019 of Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad, registered against Mathew (accused no.1) and Jayin A.M. (accused no.2) for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges the father and son trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant on 28.11.2019 and assaulted him with sticks, resulting in injuries including a fracture to the left shoulder. The petitioners contend the incident did not occur as alleged and point to Annexure A1 and A2 complaints filed by the 1st accused about thefts by the defacto complainant, suggesting enmity. They submit they are ready to comply with stringent conditions and cooperate with inquiry, proposing to appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) within ten days and to be released on bail if arrest is proposed, on bonds of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, contending the 2nd accused inflicted injuries and that the petitioners’ presence is necessary to complete the investigation. After hearing, the court acknowledges the time lapse and COVID-19 social distancing norms and restates the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It allows the applications with conditions including interrogation, bond, sureties, travel restrictions, non-commission of new offences, and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)Sections 447, 341, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Fair trial requires that an accused has opportunity to secure legal defense and liberty pending investigation
COVID-19 related social distancing guidelines in prisons may justify more conservative bail considerations in appropriate cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued the incident did not occur as alleged; Annexures A1 and A2 filed by the 1st accused indicate enmity and motive, suggesting false allegations. They submitted readiness to abide by any conditions and to cooperate, including appearing before the IO within ten days; if arrest is proposed, they requested release on bail with bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties; they emphasized social distancing norms and the extended time since the incident (2019) to argue against punitive pre-trial detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contended that the 2nd accused inflicted injuries on the defacto complainant, who sustained a fracture on the left shoulder, and that the petitioners’ continued presence is necessary to complete the investigation; opposed unconditional bail and urged calculated precautions rather than release.

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	Supreme Court directions on minimizing prison population and social distancing adopted by Kerala High Court.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Principle 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 of this Court issued guidelines for minimizing inmates; referenced to support social distancing norms.

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 Mathew vs. State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos.1302/2020 and 2239/2020) 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 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1302 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.412/2019 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION , WAYANAD DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **MATHEW AGED 56 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, APPAKKOTTU HOUSE, KALATHUVAYAL.P.O., AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD-673593.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH .P** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **BY SRI.RENJITH T.R., PP.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2239/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.2239 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.412/2019 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION , WAYANAD DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2** **JAYIN A.M. AGED 29 YEARS S/O MATHEW, APPAKKOTTU HOUSE, KALATHUVAYAL P.O.AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD-673 593.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH .P** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.GP,** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1302/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 3** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 20th day of August 2020** ... **These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code were heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioners are 1[st] and 2[nd] accused in Crime No.412 of 2019 of Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 324 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners are the father and son. They attacked the defacto complainant who is the brother of the 1[st] accused. The alleged incident happened on** **28.11.2019. The allegation is that, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and hit the defacto complainant with sticks.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the** ## **B.A.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 4** **petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel submitted that, Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 complaints are filed by the 1[st] accused to the police alleging that, the defacto complainant is committing theft of his coconut and arecanut etc. According to the counsel, Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 were filed on 18.11.2019 and 26.11.2019 respectively. The counsel submitted that, because of the enmity towards the petitioners, the present false case is registered against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting bail to the petitioners.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the 2[nd] accused inflicted injury on the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained a fracture on his left shoulder. The public prosecutor submitted that, the** ## **B.A.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 5** **presence of the petitioners are necessary for completing the investigation.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the case is registered on 2019. The alleged incident happened on 28.11.2019. When this bail application came up for consideration on 23.3.2020, this Court passed an order restraining the police in arresting the petitioners for a period of two weeks. Even now, this bail application is pending. Probably, the investigation may be stand still because of the pendency of these bail applications. At this distance of time, I do not think, it is proper to send these petitioners to jail.** **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.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 6** **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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** **2. After interrogation, if the** **Investigating Officer proposes to** ## **B.A.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 7** **arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;** **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. The petitioners shall not** **leave India without permission of the Court;** ## **5. The petitioners shall not** ## **B.A.Nos.1302 & 2239 OF 2020 8** **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 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** **pkk** **JUDGE**