High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-05Bail Granted with conditions, as detailed in th...

Robbin Alexander alias Joji v State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnicode Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BA NO.2554 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed with the following directions: 1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on a self bond and shall execute a bond under Section 441 CrPC; 2) the petitioner must provide a phone number and residential address; 3) the jail authorities shall forward the bail bond to the jurisdictional court; 4) the petitioner shall report to the SHO on release and furnish his contact details and residence; 5) the petitioner shall appear as required by the investigating officer and shall not tamper with witnesses or evidence; 6) within one week of the court’s functioning, the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs 50,000 with two sureties; 7) the petitioner shall comply with social distancing and lockdown guidelines; 8) the jurisdictional court may cancel bail if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted with conditions, as detailed in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Robbin Alexander alias Joji S/o Alexander

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnicode Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R.V. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

• P.P. Sri Ajith Murali
• Santosh Peter (Sr)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail petition relates to Crime No.268/2020 registered at Kunnikode Police Station, Kollam district, under multiple IPC sections (143, 144, 147, 148, 120(b), 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 302) read with Section 149 IPC and Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner is the second accused, Robbin Alexander alias Joji, who has been in custody since 23 February 2020. The prosecution alleges a dispute with the deceased and involvement in a criminal conspiracy with other accused; the first accused allegedly stabbed the victim, while the petitioner is said to have assaulted with his hands and legs. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the main overtacts are against the 1st accused and that the petitioner’s role is comparatively minor, and that he has already spent about 72 days in custody. Three co-accused have already been granted bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court emphasized the general bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram and COVID-19 related directions (Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons and a Kerala High Court Full Bench decision). Considering the facts, the court allowed bail with stringent conditions to balance fair trial interests and public health concerns during the pandemic.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 439CrPC Section 441IPC Section 149 (read with 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(b), 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 302)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure the accused has the opportunity of securing a fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main allegation and overtacts are against the 1st accused, not the petitioner, and that the petitioner has been in custody since 23 February 2020. He argued that three co-accused have already been released on bail and that the investigation has progressed well. Given the absence of direct involvement by the petitioner in the gravest overt acts, and since the petitioner’s role is comparatively less, bail with stringent conditions is appropriate to safeguard the right to a fair trial amid the COVID-19 restrictions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contended that the offences are serious; the petitioner is in custody for a considerable period and there is a likelihood of interfering with witnesses and evidence. He argued against granting bail given the gravity of the charges and the need to maintain the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

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 prison health measures and social distancing in the wake of the pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Supports the bail principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions on minimizing inmates in prisons during lockdown.

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 Robbin Alexander alias Joji v State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnicode Police Station 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 05TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2554 OF 2020** (CRIME NO.268 OF 2020 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, **KOLLAM DISTRICT)** ## Petitioner/2nd Accused 1. Mr.Robbin Alexander alias Joji,S/o.Alexander, aged 35 years,ThakkodMenethilVeedu,Chakkuvarakkal Muri, Chakkuvarakkal Village, Kollam,PIN-691508 By Advocate Sri. R.V.Sreejith ## Respondents/complainants: 1. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-682031 2. The Sub Inspector of Police,Kunnicode Police Station. BY P.P.SRI.AJITH MURALI & SANTHOSH PETER(SR) **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A .NO. 2554 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.2554 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of May, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.268 of 2020 of Kunnikode Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(b), 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was arrested on 23.2.2020 and he is in custody. 3.The prosecution case is that due to previous animosity towards the deceased, the petitioner who is the 2[nd] accused along with the other accused criminally B.A .NO. 2554 OF 2020 3 restrained the defacto complainant and the deceased, uttered obscene words and the 1[st] accused stabbed the deceased using a dragger. The overtact alleged against the petitioner is that, he assaulted the deceased using his hands and legs. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main allegation and overtacts are against the 1[st] accused and allegation against the petitioner is less compared to the other accused. He also contended that the petitioner is in custody from 23.2.2020 onwards. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application saying that the petitioner committed serious offence and he may not be released on bail at this stage. But it is conceded that, three of the accused were already released on bail. - 6.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the - Public Prosecutor. B.A .NO. 2554 OF 2020 4 7.It is a fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 72 days. It is also a fact that three of the accused are already on bail. It is also a fact that the serious overtacts are attributed to the 1[st] accused who is still in custody. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he used his hands and legs while attacking the deceased. Moreover, the investigation also progressed well. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think, the bail application can be allowed with stringent conditions. 7. 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 .NO. 2554 OF 2020 5 directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. 8. 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. 9. 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 Superintendent of Jail concerned where the petitioner is incarcerated is directed B.A .NO. 2554 OF 2020 6 to release the petitioner on bail on executing a self bond ensuring that he will appear before the Court concerned as and when required, if he is not in detention in any other case. It is further directed that the Superintendent of Jail should get the bail bond from the petitioner as stipulated in Section 441 Cr.P.C. 2. The Superintendent of Jail concerned shall also get the phone number and the address at which the petitioner would be residing after his release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioner will forthwith forward the bail bond obtained from the petitioner to the jurisdictional Court. 4. The petitioner immediately after release from the prison, report before the B.A .NO. 2554 OF 2020 7 Station House Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station and shall furnish his phone number and the place where he is going to reside. The Station House Officer concerned shall keep a vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioner and shall ensure that the petitioner does not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 6. The petitioner shall within one week from the commencement of the functioning of the jurisdictional court, if the court is not functioning at present, execute a bond for B.A .NO. 2554 OF 2020 8 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 7. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing and other directions in the wake of declared lockdown. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** ska