High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-09Bail granted to petitioners on stringent condit...

Mujeeb, Niyas, Nizam, and Muhammed Saik v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.1591 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
Judgment Date: 2020-09-09
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days and undergo interrogation; after interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, they shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties for like sum; they shall appear for interrogation as required and cooperate with the investigation; they shall not leave India without court permission; they shall not commit similar offences; they shall abide by social distancing and COVID-19 guidelines; they shall surrender their passports (or file an affidavit if none); they shall appear before the IO on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m. until final report; violation can result in cancellation of bail. The order cites COVID-19 related directives from the Supreme Court and a Full Bench decision, applying the general bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to petitioners on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mujeeb
Niyas
Nizam
Muhammed Saik

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri E.A. Haris (advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ajith Murali, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application under section 438 CrPC filed by four accused (petitioners) in Crime No.208/2020 of Kundara Police Station. The petitioners, accused Nos. 13, 14, 5 and 16, are alleged to have participated in aulton of rioting-like offences on 31.01.2020 at 6 p.m., along with about 50 other persons affiliated with SDPI, resulting in public order disruption and provocative slogans against rival political parties. The offences under IPC include sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 153A, 353, and 332 read with 149, in addition to other sections. The bail application had been pending since 27.02.2020, and as of the hearing the petitioners were not arrested. The petitioners contended they did not commit any offence and are not involved in the case, expressing willingness to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the necessity of custodial interrogation for the investigation. After hearing both sides, the judge allowed bail with stringent conditions, noting the time gap since the incident and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and citing social distancing guidelines. The order cites Supreme Court directives on bail principles and COVID-19 management and imposes conditions including appearance before the IO, bond, surrender of passports, restrictions on travel, and adherence to guidelines, with the possibility of cancellation if violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 153A, 353, 332 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule, the jail is the exception.
Fundamental principle of fair trial and opportunity to secure bail before conviction.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that they have not committed any offence and are not involved in the case. They expressed willingness to abide by conditions if bail is granted and argued that the delay in filing and political nature of the allegations weigh in favour of granting bail. They emphasized the long time since the incident and asserted non-interference with ongoing investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that custodial interrogation is essential for the investigation, given the seriousness and scale of the alleged rioting and the involvement of multiple accused. The prosecution stressed the need to secure witnesses, collect evidence, and prevent possible tampering, asserting that a bail grant could impede fair and efficient investigation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Used to justify reducing inmate numbers and following social distancing guidelines in prisons, informing bail conditions during the pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions for minimizing the number of inmates, guiding COVID-19 related restrictions and practices impacting bail considerations.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870)	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Affirms the bail principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure a fair trial.

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 Mujeeb, Niyas, Nizam, and Muhammed Saik 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 18TH BHADRA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.1591 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**MUJEEB**| |---|---| ||**AGED 34 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SHAHUL HAAMEED, CHIRAYIL MELATHIL,**| ||**CHTHINAMKULAM, CHANDANATHOP.P.O., PERINAD VILLAGE,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT**| |**2**|**NIYAS,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SAINULABDHEEN, CHIRAYIL MELATHIL, CHTHINAMKULAM,**| ||**CHANDANATHOP.P.O., PERINAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT**| |**3**|**NIZAM,**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SAINULABDHEEN, CHIRAYIL MELATHIL, CHTHINAMKULAM,**| ||**CHANDANATHOP.P.O., PERINAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT**| |**4**|**MUHAMMED SAIK,**| ||**AGED 23 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SHAHUL HAAMEED, CHIRAYIL MELATHIL,**| ||**CHTHINAMKULAM, CHANDANATHOP.P.O., PERINAD VILLAGE,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS**| ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------B.A.No.1591 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of September, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 13,14, 5 and 16 respectively in Crime No.208 of 2020 of Kundara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120 (B ), 153 (A), 353, 332 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 31.01.2020 at 6 p.m. the petitioners along with 50 other accused who are supporters of a SDPI, due to political animosity B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 4 with another political party created disharmony in public place and raised provocative slogans against the rival political parties. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are not involved in this case. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 7. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. 9. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The alleged incident happened on 31.1.2020. This bail application is pending from 27.2.2020 onwards. Even now, the petitioners are not arrested. The petitioners B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 5 are accused Nos.13, 14, 5 and 16. Probably, the investigating officer may be waiting for final disposal of this bail application to conclude the investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions and by directing the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer within ten days. 10. 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 COVID19 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. 11. 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** B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 6 ## **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. 12. 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 propose to 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. B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 7 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioners shall not 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. B.A.No. 1591 OF 2020 8 7. Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Investigating Officer. If there is no passport, they will file an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating officer. 8. The petitioners will appear before the Investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m till final report is filed in Crime No. 208/2020. 9. 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, JUDGE** al/-