High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-04-21Bail granted; subject to conditions (i)–(vii) a...

Said Rasak Basha @ Badusha v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A No: 2157/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. DIAS
Judgment Date: 2020-04-21
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed; bail granted on stringent conditions (i)–(vii) as stated in the order. The Jail Superintendent is to release the petitioner on furnishing permanent address and contact details, with a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; the petitioner to appear for the IO every Saturday until final report is filed; must not tamper with evidence or leave Kerala without permission; violation enables cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; subject to conditions (i)–(vii) as enumerated in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Said Rasak Basha @ Badusha

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. C. A Chacko

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Said Rasak Basha @ Badusha, accused in Crime No. 134/2020 of Wadakkanchery Police Station for offences under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused injured his daughter with a chopper, causing serious wounds to the neck and ears. The petitioner has remained in custody since 9 March 2020, and his bail application was previously rejected by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. The defense submits that the dispute with the injured party has been settled, the investigation is complete, and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, particularly in the light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The Public Prosecutor counters that while investigation is complete, the court should still ensure security for witnesses and integrity of the process, but notes that the extraordinary pandemic situation warrants consideration of bail under strict conditions to de-congest prisons. The court recalls Supreme Court pronouncements that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that refusal of bail infringes Article 21; it also cites COVID-19 related directives for prison de-congestion. Balancing these considerations with the settled dispute and completed investigation, the Court grants bail on stringent conditions to be observed during the pendency of the matter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSections 324 and 307 IPCArticle 21, Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the injured daughter has been settled, the petitioner has been in custody since 9 March 2020, and the investigation in Crime No. 134 of 2020 has been completed. Continued detention would serve no useful purpose, especially in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic and the court’s drive to de‑congest prisons. The defense emphasized that the offences carry potential severe penalties, but the settled nature of the matter, along with completion of investigation, warrants grant of bail under stringent conditions. It was urged that continued detention would unduly affect the petitioner and his family, and that bail with oversight would allow him to participate in the defense and maintain livelihood. The counsel relied on established bail principles that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that any refusal should respect constitutional liberty under Article 21.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor acknowledged that the investigation is complete and the dispute has been settled, but urged caution. While recognizing the pandemic’s strain on prisons, the PP supported granting bail only under stringent conditions to safeguard victims and witnesses and to preserve the investigation’s integrity. The PP highlighted that the Supreme Court has directed de‑congestion measures and that bail decisions must balance public safety with individual liberty, especially given current health directives. The state’s position was that bail may be warranted under supervision, but the court should ensure proper oversight, bond, reporting, and compliance to prevent tampering or re‑offending, with the understanding that the state reserves the right to seek cancellation if conditions are violated.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Cited to support the principle that bail is the rule and refusal to grant bail infringes Article 21 liberty.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India	2018 (11) SCC 1	Positive	Used to reinforce bail jurisprudence in the context of modern governance and rights.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab	(1980) 2 SCC 565	Positive	Foundational bail doctrine cited in the judgment.
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 SCC Online SC 1549	Positive	Fortifies bail proposition in recent jurisprudence.
In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020)	Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	COVID-19 related directions for de‑congesting prisons cited in support of bail under pandemic conditions.
W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 (Suo Motu)	W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions to de‑congest prisons referenced; supports precautionary release under supervision.

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 Said Rasak Basha @ Badusha 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 C.S. DIAS TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF APRIL 2020/1st VAISAKHA , 1942 ## B.A NO:2157/2020 (CRIME NO:134/2020 of Wadakkanchery Police Station Thrissur District) ## PETITIONER/PETITIONER Said Rasak Basha @ Badusha, S/o.Rasak,aged 60 years,Said Manzil,Manalithara Village,Kallumkoottam Desom,Thekkumkara P.O,Thrissur,680589. By.Adv.C.A Chacko ## RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala,Ernakulam-682031 By Public Prosecutor Sri.Amjad Ali THIS B.A. HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.04.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.A NO:2157/2020 2 ## **ORDER** This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.134 of 2020 of the Wadakkanchery Police Station. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the petitioner had caused hurt on his daughter using a chopper. He had stabbed on her neck and ears. The daughter suffered serious injuries. Hence, the petitioner has committed the above offences. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2020. His application for bail was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, by order dated 11.03.2020 in CMP No.1932 of 2020. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor via video-conferencing. B.A NO:2157/2020 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and the injured, his daughter, has been settled between them. The petitioner has been in custody since 09.03.2020. The investigation in the case has been completed. No useful purpose would be served in the continuous incarceration of the petitioner, and that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation in the above case has been completed. It is ascertained and found that the subject matter has been settled between the petitioner and the injured. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail, on stringent conditions. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** [2012 (1) SCC 40] held as follows: "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the B.A NO:2157/2020 4 personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution". 9. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India** [2018 (11) SCC 1] after going back to the days of the Magna Carta and after referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] has reiterated the same view in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra).** Again, in P **.Chidamabram v. Directorate of Enforcement** [(2019) SCC Online SC 1549] the above proposition has been fortified. 10. After the outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic in the country, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020) observed that the issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern. The State Governments were directed to take adequate measures to de-congest the prisons. Following the above direction, the Home B.A NO:2157/2020 5 Department, Government of Kerala has promulgated order dated 25.03.2020, inter alia, directing the release of under-trial prisoners alleged to have committed offences punishable with punishment for seven years or less. Later, a Full Bench of this Court by order dated 25.03.20202 in W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 (Suo Motu), has issued directions to de-congest the prisons in the State, keeping in mind the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.03.2020; that the investigation in the case has been completed; that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the injured, has been settled between them and also the legal proposition laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decisions; and the directions to de-congest prisons in view of Covid-19 pandemic, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 12. In the result this bail application is allowed, on B.A NO:2157/2020 6 ## the following conditions:- (i) Due to the present National lock-down and the closure of Courts, the Jail Superintendent, where the petitioner is incarcerated, is directed to release the petitioner on him furnishing his permanent address and phone number and the addresses and phone numbers of his proposed sureties/immediate relatives. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking to the Jail Superintendent that he and his sureties will execute the bail bond before the jurisdictional Court within one week of its reopening. The Jail Superintendent after ensuring the compliance of the above conditions, shall release the petitioner to the Station House Officer of the Police Station where the crime has been registered, who shall after noting down the above details, release the petitioner. The Investigating Officer shall keep a close vigil on B.A NO:2157/2020 7 the whereabouts of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall within one week from the re-opening of the jurisdictional Court, if not already re-opened, execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10.00 a.m and 11 a.m till final report is filed. (iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in the case, in any manner, whatsoever. - (v)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. - (vii) Needless to mention that, if the petitioner B.A NO:2157/2020 8 violates any of the above conditions, the Station House Officer shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court and file appropriate application seeking for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** kkj/21.04.2020