Shyni @ Sindhu And Ors vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.

The Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1221 of 2020 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode District. The above case is registered

against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The 3rd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are husband and wife. The 4th petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner.

The prosecution case is that, on 15.11.2020 at about 4.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 5 along with 4 identifiable persons in furtherance of their common

intention trespassed in to the residence of the defacto complainant due to the animosity. It is alleged that, the petitioners committed the offence under

Section 395 IPC also. The allegation is that, the petitioners robbed Rs.30,000/- and two mobile phones from there and also robbed Rs.10,000/- and a

mobile phone belongs to the friend of the defacto complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioners and the defacto complainant

are neighbours. There is some dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. The petitioners are in custody from 26.11.2020 onwards. I

do not want to make any observations to the merit of this case at this stage. It is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. Considering

the entire facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that, the petitioners are in custody from 26.11.2020 onwards, 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

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;

The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

The 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 this bail

is granted by this Court.