Vijayan; Saran; Laly Thankachan; Shilpa; Prasana Karliyil; Kochumon @ Sunilkumar; Syam Sarika v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.8174 OF 2020 CRIME NO.1633/2020 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha** |**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**VIJAYAN**| |||**AGED 65 YEARS,**| |||**KRISHNA SREE,ERUVA WEST,**| |||**ERUVA P. O.**| |||**KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA**| |||**PIN-690572**| |**2**||**SARAN**| |||**AGED 35 YEARS**| |||**KRISHNA SREE,ERUVA WEST,**| |||**ERUVA P. O.**| |||**KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA**| |||**PIN-690572**| |**3**||**LALY THANKACHAN**| |||**AGED 60 YEARS**| |||**KRISHNA SREE,ERUVA WEST,**| |||**ERUVA P. O.**| |||**KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA**| |||**PIN-690572**| |**4**||**SHILPA**| |||**AGED 28 YEARS**| |||**KRISHNA SREE,ERUVA WEST,**| |||**ERUVA P. O.**| |||**KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA**| |||**PIN-690572**| |**5**||**PRASANA KARLIYIL**| |||**AGED 58 YEARS**| |||**KALARIYIL HOUSE**| |||**ERUVA P. O.**| |||**KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA**| |||**PIN-690572**| |**6**||**KOCHUMON @ SUNILKUMAR**| |||**AGED 55 YEARS**| |||**KOLASSERIL HOUSE,**| |||**ERUVA P. O.**| B.A.No.8174 of 2020 2 ## **KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA** **PIN-690572** **7 SYAM SARIKA AGED 34 YEARS KRISHNA SREE, ERUVA WEST, ERUVA P. O. KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA PIN-690572** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.8174 of 2020 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.8174 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1633 of 2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354, 427 r/w. 34 of IPC. The offence under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is also alleged. 3.The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant came with a protection order to the house of her husband. At that time, she was assaulted by the petitioners who are her inlaws. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. B.A.No.8174 of 2020 4 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are lot of litigation pending between the de facto complainant and the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the 1[st] petitioner is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant, 2[nd] petitioner is the younger son of the 1[st] accused, 3[rd] petitioner is the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and 4[th] petitioner is the wife of the 2[nd] accused. The counsel submitted that the other petitioners are the relatives of the petitioners 1 to 4. The counsel submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that actually, the de facto complainant committed mischief in the house of the petitioners. There is no violation of the order passed by the Court below. The counsel submitted that there is no residence order and only a protection order passed by the Court below. The counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners may be released on bail on any conditions. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail B.A.No.8174 of 2020 5 application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners violated the orders passed by the Court. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is allegation of physical assault from the side of the petitioners towards the de facto complainant. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there are matrimonial dispute between the de facto complainant and her husband. There are several litigations pending between the parties. A counter case is also registered at the instance of the 4[th] petitioner. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 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** B.A.No.8174 of 2020 6 **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 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating B.A.No.8174 of 2020 7 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) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are B.A.No.8174 of 2020 8 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 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