High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-14Bail granted; the petitioner to be released on ...

Shajahan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No. 5007 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-14
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed. The petitioner Shajahan is directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000 each, subject to the following conditions: (1) appear before the Investigating Officer as required, (2) not leave India without court permission, (3) not commit a similar offence, (4) comply with social distancing and other COVID-19 guidelines, (5) appear before the IO on all designated days (Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m.) until final report is filed, and (6) the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kothamangalam Police Station till final report is filed. Any violation may result in cancellation of bail. The decision invokes precautionary COVID-19 directives and established bail principles to permit release with stringent conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; the petitioner to be released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shajahan

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. S. Mansoor Babu Salih

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shajahan, the petitioner, is the accused in Crime No.1164/2020 of Kothamangalam Police Station, facing allegations under IPC sections 452, 324, 326 and 307. He applied for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The High Court of Kerala, in an order dated 14 August 2020, heard the matter via video conference and observed that while the alleged offences involve serious injuries to the de facto complainant and his mother, the petitioner has been in custody since 10 July 2020. The petitioner contended that he is ready to comply with stringent conditions and that medical ailments, including an MRI showing left-temporal intracranial hemorrhage with intraventricular extension and EEG abnormalities, require attention. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing gravity of the injuries and ongoing investigation. The court noted a prior bail application (BA 4427 of 2020) was dismissed on 27 July 2020 due to gravity and stage of investigation. Relying on COVID-19 related directives (COVID-19 contagion cases) and local guidelines, and referencing the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court determined that bail can be granted under strict conditions. Ultimately, bail was allowed with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and compliance with public health guidelines. The order reflects a cautious balance between liberty and public safety in the pandemic context.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Cr.P.CSections 452, 324, 326 & 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that he is in custody since 10 July 2020 and is willing to comply with stringent conditions. He highlighted his medical condition, including MRI evidence of left temporal intracranial haemorrhage with intraventricular extension and EEG abnormalities, necessitating medical attention. He urged the Court to exercise mercy in light of COVID-19 public health concerns and the imperative to allow for treatment and fair trial while maintaining social distancing and following government directives. He relied on established bail jurisprudence that favors bail subject to conditions in appropriate cases.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the injuries to the de facto complainant and his mother are grievous, and the gravity of the offences justifies refusal of bail at this stage. The ongoing investigation and risk to public safety were emphasized; the prosecution urged continued detention until the investigation progresses further and to prevent interference with witnesses or the course of justice.

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)	Positive	Used to justify social distancing norms and directives for minimizing prison populations and related deleterious effects during the COVID-19 pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	—	Positive	Cited for guiding the court on broader constitutional and public health considerations in the pandemic affecting prison conditions.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	(2019 (16) SCALE 870)	Positive	Supportive of bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, reinforcing fair trial principles.

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 Shajahan 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** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5007 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.1164/2020 OF Kothamangalam Police Station , Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHAJAHAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, VATTAKKUDY HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686692 686692** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.MANSOOR BABU SALIH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1164 of 2020 of Kothamangalam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 452, 324, 326 & 307 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 9.7.2020, at 9.50 pm, the accused with an intention to kill the de facto complainant reached in the courtyard of the residential house of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the accused using iron chopper inflicted cut injury upon the left forehead of the de facto complainant. As a result of which, the de facto complainant sustained lacerated wound upon his forehead and thereby occurred fracture of the bone in that area. It is the B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 3 further case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant inflicted grievous injuries to the mother of the de facto complainant. She sustained fracture on the right leg bone. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 10.7.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured sustained very serious injuries. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. 7. This Court considered the bail application of the petitioner and dismissed the same on 27.7.2020 in B.A.No.4427 of 2020. This Court considered the gravity of the offence and dismissed the bail application. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder. “7. After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case in which orders under Section 439 Cr.P.C can be issued at this stage. The B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 4 petitioner was arrested only on 10.7.2020. According to the prosecution, the petitioner trespassed into the residential house of the de facto complainant at 9.50 p.m. It is the further case of the prosecution that he inflicted head injury to the de facto complainant and a fracture to the mother of the de facto complainant using dangerous weapons. Considering the seriousness of the injury and considering the fact that the investigation is only on at preliminary stage, I think the petitioner is not entitled bail at this stage.” 8. After the dismissal of the above bail application, the petitioner again filed this bail application saying that the petitioner is in custody for the last 36 days. The petitioner produced certain medical records to show that he is having some illness. Annexure-A2 is a MRI scan report. Annexure-A3 is the discharge summary issued from Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam, Thodupuzha in which the nature of illness is mentioned as “left tempro parietal intracranial haemorrage with intraventricular extension”. Annexure-A4 is the digital EEG report of the petitioner in which the observation after EEG is noted like this: “This EEG showed focal disturbance of electrical function over the left temporal region associated with epileptiform abnormalities.” B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 5 9. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is suffering from serious illness and therefore he may be released on bail on stringent conditions. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 10.7.2020 onwards, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. 11. 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. 12. 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 B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 6 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. 13. 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. 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 promise to any person acquainted with the B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 7 facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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 appear before the Investigating Officer 7. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kothamangalam Police Station till final report is filed in Crime No.1164 B.A.No. 5007 of 2020 8 of 2020. 8. The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m till final report is filed. For the purpose of appearance before the Investigating Officer, the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit of Kothamangalam Police Station. 9. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 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** cms