Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted; the applicant is to be released o...

Muhammed Arif v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. No.5485 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2020-09-04
Court Decision / Holding
The Bail Application is allowed with conditions: (1) bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount; (2) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as required and cooperate with the investigation; (3) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without permission of the court; (4) he shall not commit any offence similar to the one charged; (5) he shall abide by social distancing guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments; (6) he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Kilikolloor Police Station till the final report is filed. If any condition is violated, the bail can be cancelled.
Final Disposition
Bail granted; the applicant is to be released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MUHAMMED ARIF

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam – 682 031
  • R1: SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri C.R. Jayakumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala (Ajith Murali, PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application filed by Muhammed Arif, an 18-year-old accused in Crime No.1497/2020 of Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam, charged with offences including sections 366, 370, and 376(2)(n) IPC and sections 4 read with 2(a) and 6 read with 5(l) of the POCSO Act. The FIR originally registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, and the offences were later added. The prosecution contends that on 6 August 2020 the petitioner abducted the victim, who is the sister of the defacto complainant, and raped her, with the victim being 17 years old. The petitioner and the victim reportedly were in love, and family objections arose due to community differences; the victim allegedly volunteered to stay at the petitioner’s house. The petitioner was arrested on 9 August 2020. A prior bail application (BA No. 5174/2020) was not granted, and the petitioner withdrew that application before filing the current one. The court heard both sides, noting the minor’s status and the COVID-19 context, and relied on Supreme Court directions and Kerala Full Bench guidance to manage prison populations during the pandemic. Ultimately, the court granted bail with stringent conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appearance before IO, restriction from entering Kilikolloor jurisdiction, prohibition from committing similar offences, and adherence to social distancing guidelines until final report is filed, with possibility of cancellation if violated.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSections 366, 370, 376(2)(n) of IPCSection 4 read with 2(a) and Section 6 read with 5(l) of the POCSO ActSection 57 of the Kerala Police Act (original FIR)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
  • Grant of bail is the rule; refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.
  • Judicial reliance on COVID-19 related directives to minimize prison population and ensure safety.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused and the victim were in love and that family objections arose due to communal differences. The victim allegedly voluntarily came to the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner stated willingness to comply with any court-imposed conditions and emphasized the need for bail given the time already spent in custody. The prior bail application (BA 5174/2020) was not granted, leading to the present filing. The petitioner’s age (18 years) and the socio-familial context were cited as factors favoring bail, especially under the prevailing COVID-19 scenario.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the grounds of rape of a minor and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The prosecution argued that the risk to the victim and the need to safeguard the trial process justified keeping the accused in custody pending further investigation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020PositiveSupreme Court directions on minimizing inmate populations and social distancing in prisons were invoked.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveAffirmed bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020Mentioned OnlyFull Bench of this Court issued directions; cited to reflect guidelines related to COVID-19 prison management, not relied upon as binding precedent in its own right.

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 Muhammed Arif 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** **FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 13TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 5174/2020 DATED 20-082020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **CRIME NO.1497/2020 OF Kilikolloor Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **MUHAMMED ARIF AGED 18 YEARS NAZEEMA MANZIL, NATIONAL NAGAR-99, PATTATHANAM PO, KOLLAM – 691 001** **BY ADV. SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM – 682 031** **R1 SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-------------------------------B.A.No.5485 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of September, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1497/2020 of Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam District. The above case was registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4 read with 2(a) and Section 6 read with 5(l) of the POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 6.8.2020, the petitioner kidnapped the victim, who is the sister of the defacto complainant and committed rape. Originally the FIR was registered under section 57 of the Kerala Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Police Act and subsequently the aforesaid offences were included. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner and the victim were in love. There were some objections from the family of the victim because the petitioner and the victim were in different community. Therefore, the victim girl voluntarily came to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 9.8.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this court grants him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed rape on a minor girl. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 4 bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner was arrested on 9.8.2020. When a bail application was filed before this Court earlier as B.A No.5174/2020, this court was not inclined to grant bail. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew that bail application and this 2[nd] bail application is filed now. The petitioner is aged 18[1] /2 years and the victim is aged 17 years. The allegation is that, they were in love. I do not want to make any observation about the merits of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the victim is residing within the jurisdiction of Kilikolloor Police Station. 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 with a condition that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction limit of Kilikolloor Police Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Station till the final report is filed in Crime No. 1497/2020. 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 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 Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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; 3. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 4. 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; 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. Bail Appl..No.5485 OF 2020 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [293 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** enter the jurisdiction of Kilikolloor Police Station till the final report is filed in Crime No. 1497/2020. 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** **Sn**