Soman M vs State Of Kerala

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

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.31 of 2021 of Cherupuzha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and

others alleging offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that on 02.02.2021, the petitioner and the other accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the

defacto complainant and beat him with a wooden stick and pushed him to the road. Thereafter, accused Nos. 2 to 4 wrongfully restrained the defacto

complainant and beat him with hands. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 dragged the defacto complainant to a road situated in front of the house of one

Viswanathan. The de facto complainant sustained serious injury in the incident and thereafter, he died on 15.02.2021 from Pariyaram Medical College

Hospital while under treatment. Thus, the accused committed the above said offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

has not committed any offence. The learned counsel also submitted that the First Information Statement was given by the deceased himself before his

death. According to the learned counsel, even as per the prosecution case, the deceased approached the first accused to get liquor and the first

accused refused to give liquor because the deceased had already consumed liquor and he was in a state of intoxication. The learned counsel submitted

that the accused Nos. 2 to 4 were already released on bail by this Court as per the order in B.A.No.2336 of 2021. The learned counsel also submitted

that the petitioner is in custody from 17.02.2021 onwards and the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The ..

learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offence.

I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Annexure A2 is the First Information Statement given by the

injured who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. In the First Information Statement, the injured has not identified the accused. Moreover, the

deceased approached the accused to get liquor and at that time, the deceased had already consumed alcohol. I do not want to make any observation

about the merits of the case. The petitioner is in custody from 17.02.2021 onwards. The other accused were already released on bail. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, I think that 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:

The 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.

The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

The 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.