Biju V.N vs State Of Kerala

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

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.667/2020 of Panamaram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Section 450, 376(1) IPC. Section 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is also alleged.

Petitioner was arrested on 20.8.2020 and he is in custody.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner criminally trespassed into the house of the victim, who is a minor and committed rape. Now the minor girl

is pregnant.

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

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 20.8.2020. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled statutory

bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report is not filed so far. The Public Prosecutor submitted that draft charge is already submitted to

the Prosecutor concerned.

After hearing both sides, I think, the petitioner is entitled orders under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody for more than

90 days. The final report is not filed in this case so far. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

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:

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.

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.