High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-19Bail granted to petitioners with stringent cond...

SHABEER ALI, RAIHANATH, SAINABA, SEREENA, ABDUL NIZAR v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.6571 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-10-19
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed; bail granted with stringent conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation, bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, continued cooperation with investigation, prohibition on leaving India without court permission, prohibition from committing similar offences, compliance with COVID-19 social distancing guidelines, and court’s power to cancel bail upon violation.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to petitioners with stringent conditions under Section 438 CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shabeer Ali
Raihanath
Sainaba
Sereena
Abdul Nizar

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. P. Jayaram

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Sri. Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns five accused persons in Crime No. 644 of 2020 at Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad, under Section 498A IPC. The petitioners—Shabeer Ali, Raihanath, Sainaba, Sereena, and Abdul Nizar—seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The prosecution contends that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant, while the petitioners contend that the marital relationship between the first petitioner and the complainant persists and that the allegations are unfounded; they express willingness to comply with stringent conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but suggested that if bail is granted, it should be with strict conditions to protect the investigation and ensure fair trial. After hearing both sides, the learned judge notes that the relationship between the first petitioner and the complainant remains, and that the offences are matrimonial in nature. While not entering into the merits of the case, the court reiterates the established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to reduce prison populations, the court relies on directions from the Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons and on a Full Bench of this Court for guidelines, and grants bail with stringent conditions. Conditions include interrogation within ten days, a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, periodic appearance, restrictions on travel, prohibition on inducing witnesses, and compliance with social distancing norms. The court retains jurisdiction to cancel bail for violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 498A IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the allegations are not correct and that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant persists. The offences, being matrimonial in nature, should not bar bail, and the petitioners are ready to comply with stringent conditions and social-distancing norms. They urged that bail serves the interest of a fair trial and that detention would be disproportionate given the ongoing relationship and the absence of immediate risk to witnesses.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail, recommending stringent conditions if bail is granted, emphasizing the seriousness of matrimonial allegations and the need to safeguard the investigation and potential witnesses. The Respondent highlighted the healthcare and crowding concerns amid the COVID-19 pandemic and supported the court’s approach to balancing rights and public health.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Court relies on directions from the Supreme Court to minimize prison populations and enforce social distancing.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench of this Court issued guidelines for minimizing inmates in prisons during the pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, cited to justify granting bail with conditions.

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 SHABEER ALI, RAIHANATH, SAINABA, SEREENA, ABDUL NIZAR 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 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 27TH ASWINA, 1942**|**MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 27TH ASWINA, 1942**| |---|---| ||**Bail Appl..No.6571 OF 2020**| |**CRIME NO.644/2020 OF Nattukal Police Station , Palakkad**|| |**PETITIONER/ACCUSED**<br>**:**|| |**1**|**SHABEER ALI**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, THADIYAMPARAMBU,**| ||**EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK**| ||**678601**| |**2**|**RAIHANATH**| ||**AGED 36 YEARS**| ||**CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, THADIYAMPARAMBU,**| ||**EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK**| ||**678601**| |**3**|**SAINABA**| ||**AGED 65 YEARS**| ||**CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, THADIYAMPARAMBU,**| ||**EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK**| ||**678601**| |**4**|**SEREENA**| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, THADIYAMPARAMBU,**| ||**EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK**| ||**678601**| |**5**|**ABDUL NIZAR**| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**NAIKATH HOUSE, PADIKKAPADAM, VATTAMANNAPURAM,**| ||**ALANELLUR, MANNARKKAD TALUK**| ||**678601**| B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 2 ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.6571 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 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 the accused in Crime No.644 of 2020 of Nattukal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 498A 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 learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 4 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offences. 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. Admittedly, the marital relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The allegation is matrimonial offence. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 5 the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence even now, 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 Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE** B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 6 **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. ## 3. The petitioners shall appear before the B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 7 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. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the B.A.No. 6571 OF 2020 8 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/-