Sanal v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-11
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; (2) petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation; (3) petitioner shall not leave India without court permission; (4) shall not commit a similar offence; (5) shall strictly adhere to social distancing and related guidelines; (6) shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Malayinkeezh Police Station till the final report is filed. If violated, bail can be canceled.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with stringent conditions as stated in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanal (accused)

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. M.R. Sarin

Counsels for Respondents

• Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed by Sanal, the accused in Malayinkeezh Police Station Crime No.1070/2020, committed under sections 498A and 306 IPC. The petition is under section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2020 and has remained in custody since then. The prosecution alleges mental and physical cruelty by the husband towards Shinymol, culminating in an alleged assault preceding her suicide on 12.07.2020 and her death on 17.07.2020. The first bail application, disposed of on 17.08.2020, was dismissed with observations that serious allegations exist against the petitioner. The present court, citing the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and considering COVID-19 related directives from the Supreme Court and a Kerala High Court Full Bench decision, holds that indefinite incarceration is unnecessary as the investigation is nearly complete. After hearing both sides, the court grants bail on stringent conditions. The order requires the petitioner to furnish Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, cooperate with the investigation, refrain from leaving the jurisdiction without permission, avoid reoffending, comply with social distancing norms, and stay out of Malayinkeezh Police Station jurisdiction until the final report is filed. A breach permits cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that after 46 days in custody and with the investigation nearly complete, indefinite incarceration is unwarranted. He is ready to comply with stringent conditions, and a bail order will ensure a fair trial. The prior bail application was rejected, but no new facts necessitate denial now, and social-distancing considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic justify releasing the accused under supervision and with conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed bail but indicated willingness to accept stringent conditions if bail were granted. It emphasizes serious allegations, including assault preceding the suicide and possible statements by the petitioner’s children, and argues that the court must ensure public security and fair investigation while considering bail.

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)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing measures and guidelines for prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions in Kerala High Court minimizing inmate numbers and promulgating salutary directives, referenced to support safety-based bail conditions.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	States the basic bail jurisprudence—bail is the rule and refusal is the exception—justifying grant of bail in this case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5483 OF 2020** ## **CRIME NO.1070/2020 OF MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SANAL AGED 39 YEARS , S/O SATHI , MACHINANDU ,KIZHYAKEEKARA VEETTIL THACHOTTUKAVU , MALAYINKEEZHU THIRUVANTHAPURAM 695571 695571** **BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN-682031** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.5483 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ===================== B.A.No.5483 of 2020** **===================== Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.1070 of 2020 of Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2020 and he is in custody from 22.07.2020 onwards. 3. The prosecution case is that, the deceased Shinymol is the wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the Shinymol was solemnized B.A.No.5483 of 2020 3 in the year, 2014. Subsequently, they lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. From the early days of marriage, the petitioner ill-treated her mentally and physically. On 12.7.2020, the petitioner assaulted Shinymol and abetted her to commit suicide. Due to the abatement from the part of the petitioner, on the same day at 11 p.m. she poured kerosene over her body and set fire to herself. Subsequently, she died on 17.7.2020 at 11.40 a.m. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this is the 2[nd] bail application filed by the petitioner. The 1[st] bail application is dismissed by this Court on 17.08.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody for the last 46 days. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though B.A.No.5483 of 2020 4 opposed the bail application, 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. This Court as per order dated 17.08.2020 in B.A. No. 5072 of 2020 dismissed the bail application of the petitioner with the following observations. _“7. After hearing both sides, according to me, this is not a fit case, in which the bail can be granted at this stage. Serious allegations are there against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested only on 22.7.2020. The allegation against the petitioner includes an assault on the deceased just before she committed suicide. According to the prosecution, there are statements of the children of the petitioner also against him. 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, the petitioner is not entitled orders under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage.”_ B.A.No.5483 of 2020 5 8. Now the petitioner is in custody from 22.07.2020 onwards. The investigation of the case is almost over. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not neccessary. Therefore, this bail application can be allowed with a condition that, the petitioner shall not enter the jurisidictional limit of Malayinkeezh Police Station, till the final report is filed in the above case. 9. 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. 10. 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 B.A.No.5483 of 2020 6 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. 11. 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; 2. 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 B.A.No.5483 of 2020 7 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 petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 4. 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; 5. The petitioner 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; 6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Malayinkeezh Police Station, till the final report is filed in Crime No. 1070 of 2020. If any of the above conditions are violated by the B.A.No.5483 of 2020 8 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, JUDGE** LU