Sanal. K.S vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.679/2020 of Mundakkayam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging

offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506(ii), 325 and 427 IPC.

The prosecution case is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant's uncle on 31.8.2020 at

about 4.30 pm, and abused the defacto complainant and slapped her forcefully on her left cheek and kicked her left eye. Hence it is alleged that the

accused committed the offences. There is allegation of mischief also against the petitioner.

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

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that another crime is registered

as Crime No.680/2020 in the same police station in which the father of the defacto complainant is an accused. In that incident, the petitioner sustained

serious injuries. Annexure 1 is the wound certificate of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that a perusal of Annexure 1 wound certificate will show

that he consulted a doctor on 31.8.2020 at 4.15 pm. at General Hospital, Kanjirappally. The counsel submitted that the distance between this hospital

and the alleged place of occurrence in this crime is about 29 Km. The counsel submitted that no such incident is happened.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that in the first information statement, the time of

occurrence is mentioned as 4.30 pm. on 31.8.2020. But subsequently, a further statement was obtained in which the injured submitted that the

commission of the offence was at 3 pm. on 31.8.2020.

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of

the case. The only non bailable offence alleged in this case is under Section 452 IPC. The other offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

325 IPC, which is bailable. 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 petitioner 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 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.

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.