High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-13Bail applications allowed on stringent conditions.

Pratheesh Kumar vs State of Kerala; Nandhu vs State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos.6386/2020 & 6390/2020)

Case / Petition Number:6386/2020 & 6390/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2020-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: The bail applications are allowed with stringent conditions as set out in the order: accused to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; post-interrogation, if arrest is contemplated, to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; appearance as required; restriction on leaving India without court permission; no commission of similar offences; compliance with social distancing norms; and court authorities may cancel bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRATHEESH KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS S/O GOPIKUTTAN, THUNDUVILA HOUSE, ARASUMOODU, KULATHOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695583
NANDHU AGED 24 YEARS MANAKKATTUVILAM, WEST CHIRA, SANTHINAGAR, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695582

Respondents

State of Kerala (represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala)
The Station House Officer, Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Shajin S. Hameed
• Adv. Sri. Gokul D. Sudhakaran

Counsels for Respondents

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two connected bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by accused Pratheesh Kumar and Nandhu in Crime No.737/2020 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking pre-arrest bail. The prosecution alleges offences including wrongful restraint (341 IPC), common intention with others to assault, trespass into the defacto complainant’s premises and outrage of modesty (294(b), 354 IPC), as well as acts of430 violence against the complainant and family (323, 447, 506 r/w 34 IPC). The court observed that though the set of allegations includes a non-bailable offence under Section 354 IPC, the ultimate determination of the commission of that offence is a matter for investigation, not bail. The court reasoned that bail should not be outright denied given the broader rights to a fair trial. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it also cited directions from the Supreme Court’s Contagion in Prisons and related postures to minimize prison population and reduce transmission risk. The court stressed bail as a general rule with security and compliance requirements as prerequisites for release. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed with stringent conditions: appearance for interrogation, bond and sureties, prohibition on leaving India, non-commission of similar offences, compliance with social distancing guidelines, and possible cancellation of bail on violation. The order reflects a cautious balance between public safety, ongoing investigation, and fair trial protections during a pandemic.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 354, 447, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 354 IPC and, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. Reading the First Information Statement, their counsel submitted that the accused did not have the intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. They urged grant of bail, asserting that the investigation is at a stage where bail would not prejudice the case and that stringent conditions could ensure compliance and public safety, particularly amid the COVID-19 situation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail arguing that there is a clear statement against the 1st accused under Section 354 IPC. He urged the court to exercise caution and maintain restraint on releasing the accused, considering the alleged violent acts and the potential risk to the complainant and others, until investigation clarifies the role and motive; the need to balance efficient investigation with public safety and to follow social-distancing norms in prison settings.

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 salutary directions to minimize prison population and to implement social distancing in prison settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reiterate the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception to safeguard fair trial.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P.(C) No. 9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as the source of salutary directions for minimizing inmates; not employed as a controlling authority in the present decision.

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 Pratheesh Kumar vs State of Kerala; Nandhu vs State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos.6386/2020 & 6390/2020) 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** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6386 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.737/2020 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PRATHEESH KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS S/O. GOPIKUTTAN, THUNDUVILA HOUSE, ARASUMOODU, KULATHOOR P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695583** **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6390/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. Nos.6386 & 6390 of 2020 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6390 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.737/2020 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **NANDHU AGED 24 YEARS MANAKKATTUVILAM, WEST CHIRA, SANTHINAGAR, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM PIN-695582** **BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN-682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THUMBA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. PIN-695022** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6386/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. Nos.6386 & 6390 of 2020 3 ## **O R D E R** **[ Bail Appl..6386/2020, Bail Appl..6390/2020 ] Dated this the 13th day of October 2020** ... **These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) were heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.737 of 2020 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. Since the petitioners in these bail applications are accused in the same crime, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.** **3. The above case is registered against the petitioners and other accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 354, 447, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **4. The prosecution case is that, on 28.8.2020 at about 2 p.m., the accused persons trespassed into the compound of the defacto complainant's house and** B.A. Nos.6386 & 6390 of 2020 4 **assaulted her. It is further alleged that, the petitioners and other accused assaulted the son and the father of the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that, when a lady residing near there interfered, the accused assaulted her also. It is the prosecution case that the accused persons outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant.** **5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.** **6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 IPC. The counsel submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that, if the F.I.statement is read, it cannot be said that, the intention of the petitioners is to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. Therefore, the counsel submitted that, the petitioners may be released on bail.** **7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed these** B.A. Nos.6386 & 6390 of 2020 5 **bail applications. The public prosecutor submitted that, there is clear statement against the 1[st] accused alleging offence under Section 354 IPC.** **8. After hearing both sides, I think, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 IPC. Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out or not is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, these bail applications are 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** B.A. Nos.6386 & 6390 of 2020 6 **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 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** **2. After interrogation, if the** B.A. Nos.6386 & 6390 of 2020 7 **Investigating Officer proposes 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;** **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.6386 & 6390 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**