Aashiq vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1003/2020 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad District. The above case is registered alleging offences

punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was arrested on 12-11-2020 and he

is in custody from that date onwards.

The prosecution case is that, the petitioner was found in possession of one counterfeit note of denomination Rs.5,00/-. Hence it is alleged that the

accused committed the offences. There are other accused also in this case and counterfeit notes were seized from the other accused also. The

petitioner is arrested in this case on 12-11-2020.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly only a single counterfeit note is seized from the

possession of the petitioner. It is true that, it is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer in detail about his connection with the other

accused. But the petitioner is in custody from 12-11-2020 onwords. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case I think this Bail

Application allowed on stringent conditions.

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.

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.

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:

The 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;

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;

The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she/he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she/he is

suspected;

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;

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.