Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted with stringent conditions; bail al...

Sanoob A, Sakeena, Sanila Shanavas and T M Sharafudheen v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.7831 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Judgment Date
2020-11-30
Court Decision / Holding
Bail application allowed on stringent conditions: (1) petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) if the IO proposes arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; (3) petitioners shall appear for interrogation as required and shall cooperate with the investigation; (4) petitioners shall not leave India without court permission; (5) petitioners shall not commit a similar offence; (6) petitioners shall abide by social distancing guidelines; (7) violation of conditions permits cancellation of bail. The judge notes the Covid-19 guidelines and confirms the bail rule as the norm while safeguarding public interest and the victim's safety.
Final Disposition
Bail granted with stringent conditions; bail allowed under Section 438 CrPC with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SANOOB A
  • SAKEENA
  • SANILA SHANAVAS
  • T M SHARAFUDHEEN

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • • SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by four accused in Crime No.681/2020 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences punishable under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty on a wife) and 406 (criminal breach of trust). The petitioners are Sanoob A, Sakeena, Sanila Shanavas and T M Sharafudheen, whose matrimonial relationship with the defacto complainant is stated to be ongoing. The prosecution contends there is a continuous demand for dowry and property, and that the offences are made out. The petitioners submit that the allegations arise from a matrimonial dispute and that the facts do not warrant conviction; they are ready to abide by any reasonable bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters that the gravity of the offences warrants stringent conditions if bail is granted. The court notes that the basic principle is bail as the rule and jail as the exception, but agrees to grant bail with stringent conditions in light of the facts. The order imposes: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (ii) bonds of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (iii) regular appearances; (iv) restriction on leaving India without court permission; (v) prohibition on committing similar offences; (vi) adherence to social distancing guidelines. The Court cites Covid-19 related directives and confirms no express merits adjudication.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Criminal Procedure CodeSections 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the offences cited are matrimonial in nature and the underlying relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant persists. The allegations of cruelty are claimed to be unsubstantiated, and the petitioners are prepared to comply with any reasonable conditions. They emphasize the presumption in favor of bail and the opportunity for a fair trial, arguing that detention would be disproportionate given the matrimonial context.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that there is a continuous demand for dowry and property, and that the offences under IPC Sections 498A and 406 are made out. Citing the gravity of the allegations, the prosecution seeks stringent conditions if bail is granted to prevent tampering with witnesses or interference with the investigation and to ensure the victim’s safety while balancing the accused’s right to fair trial.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons caseSuo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020Mentioned OnlyCited to reference social distancing guidelines and court directions.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020Mentioned OnlyCited as Full Bench directions in Kerala High Court.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveCited to support the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

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 Sanoob A, Sakeena, Sanila Shanavas and T M Sharafudheen 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7831 OF 2020 CRIME NO.681/2020 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram** |**PETITIONERS/ACCUSED**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS/ACCUSED**<br>**:**| |---|---| |**1**|**SANOOB A**| ||**AGED 40 YEARS**| ||**AISHA MANSIL**| ||**MUTTAR JUNSTION**| ||**EDAPPALLY NORTH**| ||**682024**| |**2**|**SAKEENA**| ||**AGED 58 YEARS**| ||**AISHA MANSIL**| ||**MUTTAR JUNSTION**| ||**EDAPPALLY NORTH**| ||**682024**| |**3**|**SANILA SHANAVAS**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**NARIKKUNI HOUSE**| ||**NARIKKUNI**| ||**673585**| |**4**|**T M SHARAFUDHEEN**| ||**AGED 67 YEARS**| ||**MUTTAYIL HOUSE**| ||**VATTEKKUNNAM**| ||**EDAPPALLY NORTH**| ||**682024**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 2 ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.7831 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 30[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.681/2020 of Manjeri Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 4 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 there is continuous demand for dowry and property from the side of the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC is made out in this case. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 5 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the matrimonial 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 B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 6 ## 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 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 B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 7 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. 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. B.A.No. 7831 OF 2020 8 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. 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. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** al/-