Surendra Panicker v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** # **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.4948 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 3991/2020 DATED 1307-2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SURENDRA PANICKER AGED 59 YEARS SREE SOORYA, KARACKALMUKKU, PARAKKODE, ADOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691554** ## **BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4948 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of August, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the 3[rd] accused in Crime No. 1540 of 2020 of Anchal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and two others. Originally, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the offences under Section 498A, 406, 115, 326, 307, 302, 201 and 202 r/w Section 34 of the IPC is alleged. 3.The prosecution case is that the sister of the defacto complainant died in the midnight on 7.5.2020 by snake bite. She succumbed to it. The first accused, who is the husband of the deceased subjected her to snake bite twice and in the second attempt he succeeded. According to the prosecution, B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 3 the first accused committed the above offence with an ulterior motive of amassing the wealth of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the first accused was having a plan to marry another lady also. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he committed mental and physical torture to the deceased. The offence alleged against the petitioner in this bail application are under Section 498 A, 406, 201 and 202 IPC. 4. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Crime Branch, Kollam Rural filed a statement saying that the allegation against this petitioner is only under Section 498A, 406, 201 and 201 of the IPC. The main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner misappropriated the ornaments of the deceased even after her death was revealed. According to the prosecution based on the disclosure statement of this petitioner, gold ornaments concealed were recovered by the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is the prosecution case that, the gold ornaments were recovered from the property of the petitioner. B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 4 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is only under Section 498 A, 406, 201 and 202 IPC. The counsel submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence under Section 498 A IPC is three years. The counsel also submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences under Section 406 IPC is also only three years. The counsel also submitted that for the offence under Section 201 IPC, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is 7 years. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences under Section 202 IPC is six months. The counsel submitted that offences under Section 201 and 202 IPC are bailable offences. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 1.6.2020. Even now, the final report is not filed in this case. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled default bail under Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 5 7. The public prosecutor submitted that the final report is already filed against the first accused. The main offence alleged against the first accused is 302 IPC. But the public prosecution conceded that no final report is filed against this petitioner. Actually, a split charge is filed as far as the first accused is concerned. The public prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are there against the petitioner also. 8. After hearing both sides, I am forced to allow this bail application for the simple reason that, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, no final report is filed against the petitioner even now. The offences alleged against the petitioner as per the statement filed by the investigating officer are under Section 498 A, 406, 201 and 202 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 1.6.2020. Now 60 days is over after the arrest of the petitioner. No final report is filed. As per Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail, if the investigation is not over within 60 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner. In this case admittedly, the petitioner is in custody for more B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 6 than 60 days. Even now, no final report is filed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail. Hence this bail application is allowed. I make it clear that this order is applicable only to the petitioner because the petitioner is entitled statutory bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. 9. 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. 10. 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 B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 7 has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 11. 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 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 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 not enter the jurisdictional limits of Petta Police Station till final report is filed in B.A.No. 4948 OF 2020 8 Crime No. 1025/2020. 6. 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. 7. 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** al/-+