Wilson vs State Of Kerala And Anr

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

The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1499 of Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner

and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341,323,324,326,506(ii),201 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also alleged.

The prosecution case is that, on 15.09.2020 at 12:15 p.m the petitioner and the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with

common object attacked the defacto complainant and in pursuant to the same, 1st accused wrongly restrained the defacto complainant and uttered

obscene words. It is also alleged that the 1st accused assaulted on the head of the defacto complainant using a metallic block. It was alleged that, the

other accused also assaulted the defacto complainant.

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

custody from 04.10.2020 onwards. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the one of the accused is already released on bail by this

Court as per order dated 23.11.2020. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner also may be released on bail on any condition. The learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, there are criminal antecedents to the

petitioner.

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Two of the accused in the same crime, are already

released on bail by this Court. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed in B.A.No.7742/2020 and

B.A.No.7713/2020, I think this bail application can be allowed. It is true that, the petitioner was the 1st accused in this case. But considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, the petitioner is in custody from 04.10.2020, I think, the bail application of the petitioner

also can be allowed. But there is some difference as far as the allegation against this petitioner and the other accused, who were already released on

bail by this Court. There are serious allegations against the petitioner, who is the 1st accused. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioner not

to enter the jurisdictional limit of the Pallithottam Police Station, for a period of 3 months.

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 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;

The petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limit of the Pallithottam Police Station, for a period of 3 months.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10:00 a.m.. For the purpose of appearing before the Investigating

Officer, the petitioner can enter into the jurisdiction limit of the Pallithottam Police Station.

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.