Al Ameen vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2905 of 2020 of Balaramapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered

against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 326, 447, 347 and 308 read with Section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with an intention to cause

grievous hurt to the de facto complainant, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant on 12.10.202 at about 7.00 a.m. with dangerous

weapons like iron rod and punching block . It is further alleged that the accused abused the wife of the de facto complainant and intimidated her.

Hearing the noise, the de facto complainant came there and at that time, the first accused assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron rod which

was blocked by the de facto complainant and he sustained injury on the left side of the forehead. It is further alleged that the fourth accused assaulted

the de facto complainant aiming on his head and the same was also blocked which caused fracture on the right wrist of the de facto complainant.

While so, the second accused punched on the face of the de facto complainant causing loss of one tooth while the third accused caused injury to the

face. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire

allegations against the petitioner are false. According to the learned counsel, the case is registered based on a private complaint filed before the

jurisdictional court which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged incident happened on

12.10.2020 and the FIR was lodged only on 25.11.2020. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay. The learned counsel submitted that the

incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

Admittedly, the case is registered on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is the third accused. The alleged occurrence was on 12.10.2020. The FIR was lodged on 25.11.2020. I do not want to make any

observation about the merits of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think that this bail application can be allowed on

stringent conditions.

Moreover, the 2nd wave of COVID-19 is spreading in the country and the citizens are facing serious difficulties. In the state of Kerala, the 2nd

wave of the pandemic is creating lot of problems and even the day-to-day life of the citizens are affected. Everyday, about 25,000 people are tested

positive with COVID-19. In such circumstances, this Court has to consider this fact also while considering bail applications. The life is more important

than anything. Therefore, I am considering this bail application based on the above pandemic situation.

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. These happened during the

1st wave of COVID-19 season.

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 appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

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;

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 Court;

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;

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.