Shri. Rejimon v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Kunnicode Police Station

1 B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020 /8TH VAISAKHA, 1942 ## BAIL APPL.NO. 2524 OF 2020 CRIME NO 354 / 2020 OF KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION POLICE STATION, -KOLLAM DISTRICT ## PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHRI. REJIMON, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O GEORGE, THONIVILA VEEDU, MYLADUMPARA, CHENGAMANADU P.O., VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.V.ANIL KUMAR ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K **.** THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.04.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2 B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 ## **ORDER** This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.354/2020 of Kunnikode Police Station. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Secs.326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 8.3.2020, the petitioner had visited the house of his wife, the defacto complainant, and inflicted deep injuries on her right arm and rear portion of head with a sword. Again, when the petitioner attempted to asault his wife, his wife's mother intervened, and she was also assaulted. The defacto complainant also sustained a fracture. Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offences. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 8.3.2020. His application for bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court by order dated 21.4.2020 in Crl M.C No.176/2020. 3 B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor via video-conferencing. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant arises out of their strained marital relationship. As the defacto complainant did not shift from her residence as agreed, she falsely gave the above complaint. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 51 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** [2012 (1) SCC 40] held as follows: "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also 4 ## B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution". 9. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India** [2018 (11) SCC 1] after going back to the days of the Magna Carta and after referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] has reiterated the same view in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra).** Again, in P **.Chidamabram v. Directorate of Enforcement** [(2019) SCC Online SC 1549] the above proposition has been fortified. 10. After the outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic in the country, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020) observed that the issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern. The State Governments were directed to take adequate measures to de-congest the prisons. Following the 5 ## B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 above direction, the Home Department, Government of Kerala has promulgated order dated 25.03.2020, inter alia, directing the release of under-trial prisoners alleged to have committed offences punishable with punishment for seven years or less. Later, a Full Bench of this Court by order dated 25.03.20202 in W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 (Suo Motu), has issued directions to de-congest the prisons in the State, keeping in mind the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner has been in incarceration for the last 51 days; that the investigation as against the petitioner is almost complete; that the petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary; that the accusations made against the petitioner arises out of his strained marital relationship with the defacto complainant; the legal proposition laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions; the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Full Bench of this Court to 6 B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 decongest prisons in view of Covid-19 pandemic, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 12. In the result this bail application is allowed, on the following conditions:- (i) Due to the present National lock-down and the closure of Courts, the Jail Superintendent, where the petitioner is incarcerated, is directed to release the petitioner on him furnishing his permanent address and phone number and the addresses and phone numbers of his proposed sureties/immediate relatives. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking to the Jail Superintendent that he and his sureties will execute the bail bond before the jurisdictional Court within one week of its re-opening. The Jail Superintendent after ensuring the compliance of the above conditions, shall release the petitioner to the Station House Officer of the Police Station where the crime has been registered, who shall after noting down the 7 B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 above details, release the petitioner. The Investigating Officer shall keep a close vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall within one week from the re-opening of the jurisdictional Court, if not already re-opened, execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Tuesdays and Saturdays between 10.00 a.m and 11 a.m till final report is filed. (iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in the case, in any manner, whatsoever. (v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. - (vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of 8 B. A. No. 2524 of 2020 Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. (vii) Needless to mention that, if the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the Station House Officer shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court and file appropriate application seeking for cancellation of the bail. **Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE** sks/28.4.2020