Saji, Valasala and Sheeja v. State of Kerala and The SHO, Oachira Police Station

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7537 OF 2020 CRIME NO.1955/2020 OF Ochira Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONERs/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**SAJI**| |---|---| ||**AGED 47 YEARS**| ||**KAVINTE THEKKETHIL**| ||**PUTHUPPALLI**| ||**PUTHUPPALLI P O**| ||**KAYAMKULAM**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT**| ||**690502**| |**2**|**VALASALA**| ||**AGED 74 YEARS**| ||**KAVINTE THEKKETHIL**| ||**PUTHUPPALLI**| ||**PUTHUPPALLI PO**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT**| ||**690502**| |**3**|**SHEEJA**| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**KAVINTE THEKKETHIL**| ||**PUTHUPPALLI**| ||**PUTHUPPALI PO**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT**| ||**690502**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH**| |**ENTS**|**/COMPLAINANT**<br>**:**| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**682031**| |**2**|**THE SHO**| ||**OACHIRA POLICE STATION**| ||**OACHIRA**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT**| ||**690526**| ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 2 ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.JAYASURYA.B, SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.7537 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1955/2020 of Oachira Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 509 & 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 4 harassed the defacto complainant alleging that she has got some extra marital relationship. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offences. The matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 5 Admittedly, the marital relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence even now. The allegation against the petitioners is that there is matrimonial cruelty. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and 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 COVID19 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** B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 6 ## **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: 1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose 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. B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 7 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. 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. 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. B.A.No. 7537 OF 2020 8 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. ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-