Saneer, Nizar A., and Sujith v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6229 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1098/2020 OF Petta Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 SANEER AGED 25 YEARS PULICKAL PUTHUVEEDU, TC 76-817, KUDAVOOR, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695029 2 NIZAR A AGED 36 YEARS PULICKALPUTHUVEEDU, TC-76-818, KUDAVOOR, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 029 3 SUJITH AGED 32 YEARS PARASSERY VEEDU, TC 77-230, CHAKKAI, NEAR ITI, PETTA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 024** **BY ADV. SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY SRI.C.K.SURESH, SR.GP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 2 ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 5th day of October 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1098 of 2020 of Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 450, 324, 506, 307 r/w. Section 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that on 14.6.2020 at 9.30 p.m., the petitioners trespassed into the ground floor of the residence of the de facto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to her son Sri.Biju, a physically challenged person. The petitioners committed the above act in furtherance of their common intention and with the knowledge that if they caused death of the son of the defacto complainant, they would be liable for murder. The petitioners** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 3 ## **surrendered before the investigating officer on** **16.7.2020.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the** **petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are in custody from 16.7.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are in custody for about 81 days. The counsel submitted that, the investigation in this case is over. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting bail to them.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, there are several other cases registered against the petitioners. The public prosecutor submitted that, the criminal antecedents of the petitioners may also be taken into consideration while considering this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, this Court as per order dated 8.9.2020 in B.A.** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 4 **No.5472 of 2020 dismissed the bail application of these petitioners. The public prosecutor submitted that, considering the criminal antecedents of these petitioners, this Court may not grant bail to these petitioners.** **7. After hearing both sides and considering the fact that, the petitioners are in custody from 16.7.2020 onwards, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I have considered the bail application of these petitioners in B.A. No.5472 of 2020. The relevant portion of the order dated 8.9.2020 in B.A.No.5472 of 2020 is extracted** ## **hereunder:** _**“6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured sustained very serious injuries. The Public Prosecutor submitted that 1st and 4th petitioners are involved in yet another case. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he is involved in eight cases and as far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, he is involved in ten other cases. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that they are included in the rowdy list of Petta Police Station. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed**_ B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 5 _**the bail application.**_ _**7. After hearing both sides, I think the bail application of the petitioners 1 to 3 cannot be considered at this stage. The main overt act is alleged against 1st and 2nd accused. The criminal antecedents of petitioners 1 to 3 are narrated by the Public Prosecutor. As far as the 4th petitioner is concerned, no serious overt act is attributed. He is involved only in one other case.”**_ **It is true that, the petitioners are involved in some other cases also. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioners not to enter the jurisdictional limits of Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram till the investigation in Crime No.1098 of 2020 of Petta Police Station is over. I also make it clear that, if any criminal case is registered against the petitioners during the investigation period of this case, the prosecution can file an application before the jurisdictional court to cancel this bail order. The jurisdictional Magistrate can consider that bail application in accordance to law even though this bail order is passed by this Court.** **8. Moreover, considering the need to follow** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 6 **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 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** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 7 ## **allowed with the following directions:** **1. The petitioners 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;** **3. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 8 **4. The 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;** **5. petitioners shall not to enter the jurisdictional limits of Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram till the investigation in Crime No.1098 of 2020 of Petta Police** **Station is over;** **6. if any criminal case is registered against the petitioners during the investigation period of this case, the prosecution can file an application before the jurisdictional court to cancel this bail order. The jurisdictional Magistrate can consider that bail application in accordance to law even though this bail order is passed by this Court.** B.A. NO.6229 OF 2020 9 **7. 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;** **8. 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.** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** **pkk**