Vijayan And Ors vs State Of Kerala

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

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1633 of 2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the

petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354, 427 r/w. 34 of IPC. The offence under Section 31 of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is also alleged.

The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant came with a protection order to the house of her husband. At that time, she was assaulted by

the petitioners who are her in- laws. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are lot of litigation pending between the de facto complainant and the petitioners. The counsel

submitted that the 1st petitioner is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant, 2nd petitioner is the younger son of the 1st accused, 3rd petitioner is

the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and 4th petitioner is the wife of the 2nd accused. The counsel submitted that the other petitioners are

the relatives of the petitioners 1 to 4. The counsel submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that actually,

the de facto complainant committed mischief in the house of the petitioners. There is no violation of the order passed by the Court below. The counsel

submitted that there is no residence order and only a protection order passed by the Court below. The counsel submitted that in such circumstances,

the petitioners may be released on bail on any conditions.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners violated the orders passed by the

Court. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is allegation of physical assault from the side of the petitioners towards the de facto

complainant.

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there are matrimonial dispute between the

de facto complainant and her husband. There are several litigations pending between the parties. A counter case is also registered at the instance of

the 4th petitioner. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they 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 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.

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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 the bail is

granted by this Court.