High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail applications allowed; bail granted to all ...
RAFEEQ A M v STATE OF KERALA
Case / Petition Number:5339 of 2020 and connected cases
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2020-09-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Court disposed all connected Bail Applications by allowing bail with stringent conditions. Specifically: (i) bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on Mondays and Fridays at 10:00 a.m. until final report is filed; (iii) petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; (iv) shall not commit any similar offence; (v) shall abide by government guidelines on social distancing in prisons; (vi) surrender passports (or file an affidavit if none); (vii) furnish permanent and present addresses with telephone numbers within 10 days of release; (viii) court retains power to cancel bail for violations. The order reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing jurisprudence and COVID-19 directives.”,
- Final Disposition
- Bail applications allowed; bail granted to all petitioners on stringent conditions as set out in the order.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- RAFEEQ A M
- MUHAMMED SHERIEF
- RAMESAN
- ASHARAF A.S
- ABDUL SALAM
- NAJEEB RAJA
- JAFFER SADIQ
- JAFFER SATHIQ
- MUHAMMED HARIS
- K.K. ABOOBACKER
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Mansoor B. H.
- • V. A. Vinod
- • Rajit
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI AJITH MURALI
- • SRI RENJITH T.R
- • SRI SANTHOSH PETER
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a consolidated bail-order of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, P. V. Kunhikrishnan) delivering a common order on 7 September 2020 under Section 439 CrPC across multiple connected bail applications filed by accused in several crimes (primarily 506/2020, 507/2020, 572/2020, 579/2020, 469/2020, and 481/2020) connected to Kalamassery, Ernakulam and Kalamasserry Police Stations. The petitioners—led by Rafeeq A. M.—are charged with offences including sections 384 and 370 IPC, along with other offences, and have been detained for over 50 days in various cases. The State contends serious criminal conspiracy, illegal confinement to extort money, and alleged trafficking under section 370 IPC, with multiple cases registered in different police stations. The petitioners argue, among other things, the non-fulfillment of essential elements of the 370 IPC charge and note that statutory bail under section 167 CrPC could apply for those held beyond 60 days, while acknowledging the gravity of the offences. The Court, after hearing both sides and considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison populations, holds that bail can be granted on stringent conditions. It grants bail with bonds of Rs 50,000 each, two solvent sureties, regular appearances, non-flight and non-commission of further offences, adherence to social-distancing guidelines, surrender of passports, and provision of permanent/present addresses, with the court retaining flexibility to cancel bail on breach. The order emphasizes bail as the general rule and jail as the exception, citing relevant jurisprudence and COVID-19 directives.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 439 CrPCSection 167 CrPCSection 370 IPCSection 384 IPC
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (16) SCALE 870)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that even if the allegations are accepted in their totality, the offence under Section 370 IPC lacks essential elements such as trafficking in persons, and thus the gravity of the case may not justify denial of bail at this stage. They argue several petitioners qualify for statutory bail under Section 167 CrPC on the ground of detention beyond the period initially permissible, particularly some exceeding 60 days. They emphasize the need for bail in the light of substantial delays, risk of overcrowding in prisons amid COVID-19, and the general principle that bail facilitates a fair trial. They seek bail on stringent conditions to prevent flight, ensure cooperation with investigators, prohibit travel, require compliance with social-distancing norms, surrender of passports, and regular reporting. The relief is sought to maintain the balance between prosecutorial interests and the rights of the accused while addressing public health considerations during the pandemic.
Contentions of Respondents
The State argues that the petitions involve very serious offences—entailing large-scale extortion and conspiracy across multiple jurisdictions—with several cases filed in different stations. It contends that there is a realistic possibility of flight, interference with witnesses, and trial disruption if released on bail at this juncture. The State emphasizes the multiplicity of cases, the seriousness of the offences including 370 IPC, and the lengthy detention, which weighs against grant of bail at this stage. It submits that rigorous scrutiny of the merits is essential given the nature of the charges, the number of people involved, and the risk to public safety should bail be granted prior to final investigation and trial.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2019 (16) SCALE 870 | Positive | Used to support the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. |
| Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons | Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020 | Mentioned Only | Cited for social-distancing and prison management directions during COVID-19. |
| W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020 | — | Mentioned Only | Referenced for broader court directives on reducing prison population in the pandemic. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 RAFEEQ A M 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**
## **MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
## **Bail Appl..No.5339 OF 2020**
**CRIME NO.579/2020 OF Kalamassery Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
- **1 RAFEEQ A. M., AGED 30 YEARS, AMBALATHU VEEDU,SANTHI ROAD, VADANAPALLY,THRISSUR-680614**
- **2 MUHAMMED SHERIEF, AGED 32 YEARS, SALEENA MANZIL,PUDUPALLY THERUVU, BHARATH NAGAR,NOORANI,PALAKKAD.**
- **3 RAMESAN, AGED 35 YEARS, KUMARAKKATT HOUSE,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR.**
- **4 ASHARAF A.S., AGED 51 YEARS, AMBALATHU HOUSE,CHETTUVA, THRISSUR**
- **5 ABDUL SALAM,, AGED 23 YEARS PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,KURIKKUZHI, NEAR KURIKKUZHI MOSQUE, KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR**
**BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031**
**SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP, SRI,RENJITH.T.R., PP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020,**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
2
**Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
3
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5341 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 639/2020 DATED 17-08-2020 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM**
**CRIME NO.506/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**NAJEEB RAJA @ RAZA @ KANNAN,**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 27 YEARS,**|
||**S/O MUHAMMED MEERAN,**|
||**88K, FATHIMA HOUSE,**|
||**KANIYAMUTHUR P.O, KARUMPUKADAI,**|
||**COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU-641008.**|
|**2**|**JAFFER SADIQ @ RISHI,**|
||**AGED 27 YEARS,**|
||**S/O MUHAMMED IBRAHIM,**|
||**GNV-97, PILLAYAPURAM,**|
||**GANDHI NAGAR, COIMNATORE,**|
||**TAMILNADU-641603**|
||**BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD**|
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031**
## **R1 BY SRI AJITH MURALI,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
4
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5342 OF 2020**
**CRIME NO.507/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
||**1**|**NAJEEB RAJA @ RAZA @ KANNAN,**|**NAJEEB RAJA @ RAZA @ KANNAN,**||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||**AGED 27 YEARS,**|||
|||**S/O MUHAMMED MEERAN,**|||
|||**88K, FATHIMA HOUSE, KANIYAMUTHUR P.O,**|||
|||**KARUMPUKADAI, COIMBATORE,**|||
|||**TAMILNADU-641001**|||
||**2**|**JAFFER SADIQ @ RISHI,**|||
|||**AGED 27 YEARS,**|||
|||**S/O MUHAMMED IBRAHIM,**|||
|||**GNV-97, PILLAYAPURAM,**|||
|||**GANDHI NAGAR, COIMBATORE,**|||
|||**TAMILNADU-641603**|||
|||**BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD**|||
|**RESPONDENT**<br>**:**|||||
|||**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**|||
|**07.09.2020,**<br>**ALONG**<br>**WITH**<br>**Bail**|||**Appl..5339/2020,**|**Bail**|
|**Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020,**|||||
|**Bail**|**Appl..5346/2020,**<br>**Bail**||**Appl..5391/2020,**|**Bail**|
|**Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020,**|||||
|**Bail**|**Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME**||||
|**DAY PASSED**||**THE FOLLOWING:**|||
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
5
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
## **Bail Appl..No.5344 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1561/2020 DATED 19-08-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM**
**CRIME NO.506/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**||**RAFEEQ AM**|
|---|---|---|
|||**AGED 30 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU VEEDU,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPALLY,THRISSUR**|
|||**680614**|
|**2**||**ASHARAF A.S**|
|||**AGED 47 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU VEEDU,CHETTUVA,THRISSUR**|
|**3**||**RAMESHAN**|
|||**AGED 34 YEARS**|
|||**KUMARAKKATT HOUSE,KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR**|
|**4**||**MUHAMMED SHERIF**|
|||**AGED 32 YEARS**|
|||**SALEENA MANZIL,PUDUPALLY THERUVU,BHARATH**|
|||**NAGAR,NURANI,PALAKKAD**|
|**5**||**ABDUL SALAM**|
|||**AGED 23 YEARS**|
|||**PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,,KURIKKUZHI,NEAR KURIKUZHI**|
|||**MOSQUE,KAIPPAMANGALAM KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR**|
|||**BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.**|
|**RESPONDENT**<br>**:**|||
|||**STATE OF KERALA**|
|||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**|
|||**KERALA**|
|||**682031**|
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
6
## **R1 BY SRI. RANJITH T.R.,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
7
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
## **Bail Appl..No.5345 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1562/2020 DATED 19-08-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM**
**CRIME NO.507/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**||**RAFEEQ A M**|
|---|---|---|
|||**AGED 30 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU VEEDU,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPALLY,THRISSUR**|
|||**680614**|
|**2**||**ASHRAF A.S**|
|||**AGED 52 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU HOUSE,CHETTUVA,THRISSUR**|
|**3**||**RAMESAN**|
|||**AGED 35 YEARS**|
|||**KUMARAKKAT HOUSE,KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR**|
|**4**||**MUHAMED SHERIEF**|
|||**AGED 29 YEARS**|
|||**SALEENA MANZIL,PUDUPALLY THERUVU,BHARATH**|
|||**NAGAR,NURANI ,PALAKKAD**|
|**5**||**ABDUL SALAM**|
|||**AGED 23 YEARS**|
|||**PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,KURIKKUZHI,NEAR KURIKKUZHI**|
|||**MOSQUE,KODUNGALLUR,THEISSUR**|
|||**BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.**|
|**RESPONDENT**<br>**:**|||
|||**STATE OF KERALA**|
|||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**|
|||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA**|
|||**682031**|
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
8
## **R1 BY SRI. AJITH MURALI,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
9
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
## **Bail Appl..No.5346 OF 2020**
**CRIME NO.572/2020 OF Kalamassery Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**||**RAFEEQ A M**|
|---|---|---|
|||**AGED 30 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU VEEDU,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPLIIY,THRISSUR**|
|||**680614**|
|**2**||**MUHAMED SHERIF**|
|||**AGED 32 YEARS**|
|||**SALEENA MANZIL,PUDUPALLY THERUVU,BHARATH**|
|||**NAGAR,NURANI,PALAKKAD**|
|**3**||**RAMESAN**|
|||**AGED 35 YEARS**|
|||**KUMARAKKATT HOUSE,KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR**|
|**4**||**ASHARAF A.S**|
|||**AGED 52 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU HOUSE,CHETTUVA,THRISSUR**|
|**5**||**ABDUL SALAM**|
|||**AGED 23 YEARS**|
|||**PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,KURIKKUZHI,NEAR KURIKKUZHI**|
|||**MOSQUE,KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR**|
|||**BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.**|
|**RESPONDENT**<br>**:**|||
|||**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**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
10
**07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
11
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5391 OF 2020**
**CRIME NO.469/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**||**RAFEEQ A M**|
|---|---|---|
|||**AGED 30 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU VEEDU,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPALLY,THRISSUR**|
|||**680614**|
|**2**||**ASHARAF**|
|||**AGED 52 YEARS**|
|||**AMBALATHU VEEDU,NALUMOOLA CENTRE,CHETTUVA,THRISSUR**|
|**3**||**ABDUL SALAM**|
|||**AGED 23 YEARS**|
|||**PUTHITAVEETTIL ,KURIKUZHI,NEAR KURIKUZHI**|
|||**MOSQUE,THRISSUR**|
|**4**||**MUHAMED SHERIEF**|
|||**AGED 32 YEARS**|
|||**ZALINA MANZIL,PUTHUPALLY THERUVU,PALAKKAD**|
|||**BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.**|
|**RESPONDENT**<br>**:**|||
|||**STATE OF KERALA**|
|||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**|
|||**KERALA**|
|||**682031**|
**BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
12
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5465 OF 2020**
## **PETITIONER:**
> **1 MUHAMMED HARIS, AGED 24 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, AMBALATHUM HOUSE,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPILLY VILLAGE,DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 614.**
> **2 K.K. ABOOBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O KUNJUVAVA, KUTTIKAL HOUSE, SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPILLY VILLAGE,DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 614. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682031**
## **SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.GP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
13
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5467 OF 2020**
## **PETITIONER:**
**MUHAMMED HARIS, AGED 24 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, AMBALATHUM HOUSE,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPILLY VILLAGE,DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 614. 680614**
**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682031**
## **SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.GP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
14
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5468 OF 2020**
**CRIME NO.507/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONER:**
**MUHAMMED HARIS AGED 24 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, AMBALATHUM HOUSE,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPILLY VILLAGE,DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 614. 680614**
**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031**
**SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.GP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
15
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5469 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1559/2020 DATED 19-08-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM**
**CRIME NO.572/2020 OF Kalamassery Police Station , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONER:**
> 1 **MUHAMMED HARIS, AGED 24 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, AMBALATHUM HOUSE,SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPILLY VILLAGE,DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 614.**
2 **K.K. ABOOBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O KUNJUVAVA, KUTTIKAL HOUSE, SANTHI ROAD,VADANAPILLY VILLAGE,DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 614.**
**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031**
## **SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.GP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
16
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942**
**Bail Appl..No.5541 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 951/2020 DATED 25-08-2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA**
**CRIME NO.481/2020 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION , Ernakulam**
## **PETITIONERS:**
**1 NAJEEB RAJA AGED 27 YEARS S.O MUHAMMED MEERAN, N-88, FATHIMA HOUSE, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU 641008 2 JAFFER SATHIQ AGED 27 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, HOUSE NO GN 97, GANDHINAGAR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU 641603 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
17
## **ORDER**
**[ Bail Appl..5339/2020, Bail Appl..5341/2020, Bail Appl..5342/2020, Bail Appl..5344/2020, Bail Appl..5345/2020, Bail Appl..5346/2020, Bail Appl..5391/2020, Bail Appl..5465/2020, Bail Appl..5467/2020, Bail Appl..5468/2020, Bail Appl..5469/2020, Bail Appl..5541/2020 ]**
## **Dated this the 7th day of September 2020**
These Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The Petitioners are accused in Crime Nos.
506/2020 and 507/2020 of Town North Police Station, Ernakulam, Crime Nos. 572/2020 and 579/2020 of
Kalamasserry Police station, Crime No.469/2020 of Maradu Police Station, and in Crime No.481/2020 of Elamakkara Police Station. The allegation in all these
crimes are one and the same. The offences alleged are also almost the same. Therefore I am disposing these bail applications by a common order. The main offences alleged in all these cases are under Sections 384 and 370 of the I.P.C. along with other offences. The petitioners in all these case were arrested on
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
18
different dates and they are in custody for more than 50 days.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention hatched a conspiracy. The prosecution further alleged that the defacto complainants in these cases were illegally
confined by the petitioners to extort money. It is
also alleged that the accused enticed the defacto
complainant to travel with them to Valayar in Palakkad
district, Muvatttupuzha and Chalakkudy by offering
event management job. It is further alleged that the
accused extorted huge amount from the defacto complainants. Accordingly the above 6 cases were
registered at 4 different Police stations. The petitioners in these cases were arrested on different dates. Almost all of them are in custody for more than 50 days in the respective crimes.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
19
accepted no offence is made out against the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the serious offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 370 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the
petitioners also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, there are no ingredients to
attract Section 370 I.P.C. According to the counsel
there is no allegation from the prosecution that there
is trafficking of persons. The Counsel submitted that as far as the other offences are concerned some of the
petitioners are entitled statutory bail under Section
167 Cr.P.C., because some of the petitioners have completed 60 days of detention. No final report is filed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have committed very serious offences. Several cases are registered at different Police Stations. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not release the petitioners on bail at this stage.
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
20
7. After hearing both sides, I think these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners are in detention for the last several days. The allegations against the petitioners are the same. It is difficult at this stage to say whether the offence under Section 370 I.P.C. is made out . I do
not want to make any observation on the merit of the
case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and considering the fact that that the petitioners are in custody for more than 50 days in almost all the case, I thing this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
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,
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
21
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:
**==> picture [309 x 12] intentionally omitted <==**
on bail on executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only)each with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court;
2. The petitioners shall appear
before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.00 a.m. till
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
22
Final Report is filed in the above
cases. 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;
3. The petitioners shall not leave
India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court;
4. The 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;
5. The petitioners shall strictly
abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of
B.A. NO. 5339 OF 2020 AND CONN. CASES
23
social distancing in the wake of Covid
19 pandemic;
6. The petitioners shall surrender
their passports before the Court below.
If there is no passport they will file an affidavit to that effect.
7. The petitioners will furnish
their permanent address and present
address with telephone number to the
Investigation Officer within 10 days
from the date of their release.
8. 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**
SSK/07/09