Sherin vs State Of Kerala

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

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 108/2012 of Njarakkal Police Station. Above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging

offences punishable under Secs. 379, 406, 420 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.

The prosecution case is as follows : The defacto complainant is the registered owner of a Swift Desire vehicle bearing registration No. KL-7 CG

9775. On 15.1.2020, the complainant sold the vehicle to Abhilash on an understanding that he would pay the monthly instalment to Magma Finance

Enterprises. According to the complainant, Abhilash paid instalments only till March, 2020. On 26.12.2020, Abhilash informed the complainant that the

1st and 3rd accused borrowed the vehicle from one Jinshad. After borrowing the vehicle, the accused person failed to return the vehicle. Hence, it is

alleged that the accused committed the offence. Above case is registered based on a private complaint filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court,

which was forwarded under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner is not even

mentioned in the FIR. Subsequently, a report is submitted implicating the petitioner as an accused and he was arrested on 17.4.2021. The counsel

submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner is in custody from 17.4.2021. The police

registered the case based on a private complaint filed by the complainant before the Jurisdictional Court which was forwarded under Sec. 156(3) of

the Cr.P.C. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The investigating officer is free to investigate the case in accordance

with the law. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think 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:

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.