AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1025 of 2020 of Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against
the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 498A IPC.
The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute pending between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant. The
counsel submitted that the offence alleged is matrimonial offence. The counsel submitted that the matrimonial relationship between the 1st petitioner
and the de facto complainant is in existence even now. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant
them bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions
may be imposed.
After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, matrimonial offence is alleged. The
matrimonial relationship between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant is in existence even now.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
After interrogation, if the Investigating 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.
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.
Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are
suspected.
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.
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.