Sujith S.R. 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.1133 of 2020 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354, 427, 448, 452, 509 r/w. Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 17.9.2020 at about 2 pm, the accused persons trespassed into the rented building of the de facto complainant and

uttered obscene words to the wife of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that on the same day at 7 p.m also accused trespassed into the house and

the 1st accused pushed down the wife of the de facto complainant and the other accused assaulted the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the

2nd accused pulled down his pants. It is also alleged that the accused hurled beer bottles towards the house and one beer bottle hit on the left chest of

de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the 3rd accused committed mischief by damaging some flower vase.

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

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner

was attacked by the de facto complainant and he filed Annexure-1 complaint before the police. Annexure-2 is the receipt issued by the police

authorities. Because of that enmity this false case is registered against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the de facto complainant is the tenant

of the father of the petitioner. There is some landlord - tenant dispute. Because of the same this false case is registered.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences under Sections 452 and 354 IPC are alleged

against the petitioner.

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there is some landlord - tenant dispute

between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is residing in the house of the father of the petitioner based on a rent

agreement. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case.

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.