Ramkumar Rajan v. State of Kerala and Mannanthala Police Station (Bail Application No. 5314 of 2020)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5314 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1282/2019 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **RAMKUMAR RAJAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. V RAJAN, TAPASYA, TC 11/1645, THATTINAKAM, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015** **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN : 682031** ## **BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 24th day of August 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1282 of 2019 of Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 294(b) and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under Sections 31(1) and 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.** **3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner who is the husband of the defacto complainant, mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner inflicted grievous hurt to the defacto complainant.** **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 3** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner produced several documents to substantiate his case. The counsel submitted that, Annexure-4 is the F.I.R in this particular case. The counsel submitted that, the F.I.statement is given on 10.7.2019. The allegation is that the petitioner inflicted grievous hurt to the defacto complainant in an incident happened on 1.11.2018. The counsel produced Annexure-3 discharge certificate of the defacto complainant. In the discharge certificate, it is stated that the defacto complainant sustained a fracture by a fall. The counsel submitted that, the defacto complainant is now making use of this incident and alleging that the petitioner inflicted grievous hurt to the defacto complainant. The petitioner produced Annexure-1 order dated 11.3.2019 in M.C. No.24 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Thiruvananthapuram, which** ## **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 4** **is an order passed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. Annexure-2 is an order obtained by the petitioner from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.No.1460 of 2019. The** **counsel submitted that, a subsequent F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner as evident from Annexure-5 and in that case, the Sessions Court granted bail to him as per Annexure-6 order. The counsel submitted that admittedly, it is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant bail to the petitioner.** **6. The learned public prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner inflicted grievous hurt to the defacto complainant.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there is a matrimonial dispute pending between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.** ## **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 5** **There are allegations and counter allegations. Several litigations are pending before the Magistrate Court and the Family Court between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, 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, 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** ## **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 6** **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 petitioner shall appear** **before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** ## **2. After interrogation, if the** **Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the** ## **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 7** ## **satisfaction of the officer concerned;** **3. 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 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 petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;** **5. 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;** **6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued** **B.A. NO.5314 OF 2020 8** **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 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** **pkk** **JUDGE**