Vipin S. vs State Of Kerala

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

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 764 of 2019 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District. The above case is registered

against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant

sustained hurt, because of the assault from the side of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner also committed the offence under

Section 75 of the JJ Act.

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

Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner are matrimonial offences. There are matrimonial dispute pending between the petitioner and

the de facto complainant. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of the case. The alleged incident in which the victim sustained a

grievous hurt happened on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, the complaint is filed after a long time. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case

and also considering the fact that the matrimonial offences are alleged against the petitioner, 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 proposes 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;

The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the 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.