Vipinlal vs State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Ponnani Police Station

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.2314 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.7/2019 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.15:** **VIPINLAL AGED 25 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN, KAKKINGAL HOUSE, PONNANI P O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031, (CRIME NO.7/2019 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679577, (CRIME NO.7/2019 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).** ## **BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 21st day of August 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.7 of 2019 of Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 332, 333, 326, 307 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act).** **3. The prosecution case is that, on 3.1.2019, in pursuance of call for a harthal in connection with entry of women in Sabarimala, around 200 BJP, Sanga Parivar, RSS workers, while conducting a procession** **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 3** **and when they reached near to Chamravattam, the members of the procession committed mischief and smashed the glass of a car. When the police officers interfered, it is alleged that the accused 16 in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, bamboo sticks etc. committed rioting and in furtherance of their common intention and object, and on the instruction of accused No.1, they attacked CW7 and give a blow aiming on his head and when warded off hit on his left arm causing a fracture. It is also alleged that, the accused caused a loss of Rs.2,500/to the Government and Rs.21,750/- to the charge witness No.1 and hence the accused committed the said offences.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in this case. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is** ## **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 4** **arrayed as accused No.15 in this case. The counsel submitted that all other accused are released on bail. The counsel also submitted that one of the accused released under Section 438 Cr.P.C.** **6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that the specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. The public prosecutor submitted that, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for completing the investigation.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed, on stringent conditions. The alleged incident in this case happened on 3.1.2019. Now about 1 ½ years have elapsed after the said incident. The counsel submitted that, all the other accused were released on bail. One of the accused was released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, the petitioner can also be released on bail on conditions, inter** ## **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 5** **alia that, he will deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/before the court below because an offence under Section 3 of the PDPP Act is also alleged against the petitioner.** **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 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.** **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** ## **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 6** **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 petitioner/s shall appear** **before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** **2. After interrogation, if the** **Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he 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;** **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 7** **3. 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;** **4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;** **5. The 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 deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two** **B.A. No.2314 of 2020 8** **thousand and Five hundred only) before the jurisdictional court within 10 days after releasing of the petitioner on bail by the investigating officer. The amount deposited will be subject to the final decision of this case;** **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** **pkk** **JUDGE**