High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-08Bail granted to the 1st petitioner with conditi...

ShyLaja and Shivadasan v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Valappattanam Police Station

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 5225 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-08
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application of the 1st petitioner is allowed with stringent conditions: (i) appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (ii) after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; (iii) shall appear as required and cooperate with the investigation; (iv) shall not leave India without court permission; (v) shall not commit any offence similar to the one charged; (vi) shall abide by social distancing guidelines due to COVID-19; (vii) if violated, the bail can be cancelled. The bail application of the 2nd petitioner is closed, recording that she is not an accused.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the 1st petitioner with conditions; the 2nd petitioner’s bail application is closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ShyLaja
Shivadasan

Respondents

State of Kerala through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Valappattanam Police Station, Kannur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. RukhiyaBi Mohd Kunhi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Renjith T.R., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by two petitioners, ShyLaja and Shivadasan, in Crime No. 772 of 2019 of Valappattanam Police Station, Kannur District. The 1st petitioner ShyLaja is the wife of the 5th accused, and the case involves multiple serious offences alleged against several accused, including 363, 370, 366A, 368, 323, 342, 343, 344, 346, 120(b) read with 34 IPC, and an offence under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Public Prosecutor states that the 2nd petitioner is not an accused, while the first petitioner and others allegedly concealed the whereabouts of the victim. The defense contends that the 1st petitioner did not commit any offence, that she was unaware of the details, and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The court notes the elopement of the accused with the victim, but emphasises that bail is the rule and the jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and COVID-19 prison guidelines. After hearing, the court grants bail to the 1st petitioner under stringent conditions, including reporting to the IO within ten days, furnishing a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, and compliance with travel restrictions and COVID norms. The 2nd petitioner’s bail plea is recorded as closed. The decision reflects the balancing of investigation needs, public safety, and fundamental fair trial rights during pandemic conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 363, 370, 366A, 368, 323, 342, 343, 344, 346, 120(b) r/w Section 34 IPCSection 9(n) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same: the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure a fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The 1st petitioner contends that she did not commit any offence and was unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the victim; she is prepared to comply with all bail conditions and seeks relief with stringent safeguards. It is argued that custodial interrogation is unnecessary at this stage, and the investigation can proceed with cooperation from the petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is not an accused, and her counsel emphasizes non-involvement and absence of direct proof linking her to the alleged offences.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that the 2nd accused and the 1st petitioner actively participated and concealed the whereabouts of the accused and the victim; the offences are serious and involve cooperation with the investigation, hence bail should be granted only under strict conditions and after ensuring compliance and monitoring by the authorities.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for directions minimizing prison populations during COVID-19; used to justify prison-related guidelines and bail considerations.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to secure fair trial.

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 ShyLaja and Shivadasan v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Valappattanam Police Station 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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5225 OF 2020** ## **CRIME NO.772 OF 2019 OF VALAPPATANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SHYLAJA AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ARAMBHAN HOUSE , THAAYAMPOYIL MAYYIL, KANNUR-670602.** - **2 SHIVADASAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT 230/(372) PANAYAN HOUSE, PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR. 670561** - **BY ADV. SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN -682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670010** ## **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 2 ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 8th day of September 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The 1[st] petitioner is the 5[th] accused in Crime No.772 of 2019 of Valappatanam Police Station, Kannur District. The public prosecutor submitted that the 2[nd] petitioner is not an accused. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 370, 366A, 368, 323, 342, 343, 344, 346, 120(b) r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence under Section 9(n) r/w. Section 10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act is also alleged against the petitioner.** **3. The prosecution case is that, the 1[st] accused and the victim girl were in love. They eloped and** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 3 **went to Bangalore and thereafter proceeded to Thirupathi. The allegation against the 1[st] petitioner is that, she and her husband have not disclosed the whereabouts of the 1[st] accused and the victim and therefore, the 1[st] petitioner and her husband were implicated in this case.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the 1[st] petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] petitioner submitted that, the petitioner has not committed any offence. Her son was in love with the victim girl. The petitioner is not aware about the whereabouts of her son and the victim girl. The petitioner submitted that, she is ready to abide any conditions if this Court is granting bail to her.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the 2[nd] accused and the 1[st] petitioner herein are actively involved in this case and they suppressed the whereabouts of the 1[st] accused and the victim girl.** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 4 **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed, on stringent conditions. The admitted case is that the 1[st] accused eloped with the victim girl. It is also an admitted fact that, the 1[st] accused and the victim girl were in love. The allegation against the 1[st] petitioner is that, she and her husband have not disclosed the whereabouts of the 1[st] accused and the victim girl. According to the petitioner, she was not aware of the same. It is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. For that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the 1[st] petitioner is not necessary in this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is allowed.** **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** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 5 **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 allowed with the following directions:** **1. The 1[st] petitioner shall** **appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 6 ## **2. After interrogation, if the** **Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the 1[st] petitioner, she shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty** **Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer** ## **concerned;** **3. The 1[st] petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 1[st] 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 facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;** **4. The 1[st] petitioner shall not** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 7 ## **leave India without permission of the** ## **Court;** **5. The 1[st] petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected;** **6. The 1[st] 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;** **7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 1[st] petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **The bail application of the 2[nd] petitioner is closed** B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 8 **recording the submission of the public prosecutor that, he is not an accused.** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **pkk** **JUDGE**