Kerala High Court
Richu Antony vs State Of Kerala on 7 May, 2021
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MAY 2021/17TH VAISAKHA, 1943
Bail Appl..No.3565 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1899/2020 OF Munnar Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 RICHU ANTONY, AGED 26 YEARS,
ARACKAL HOUSE, MUNNAR COLONY,
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, MUNNAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 612
2 RICHARD S., AGED 55 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.428, NEAR WORKSHOP CLUB,
OLD MUNNAR, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.
3 K.J. SHAJI, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O K.P.JOSEPH, KUTTANCHALLIL HOUSE,
ARULMANI BRIDGE, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS,
MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSEPH MARY DAS
SMT.ANU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682 031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION,
AGED 50 YEARS,
MOOLAKADAI, MUNNAR, KERALA - 685 612
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.3565 OF 2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3565 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of May, 2021
ORDER
The bail application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1899/2020 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 341, 342, 452, 365, 397, 450 and 506 (ii) read with 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons. It is alleged that the defacto complainant, who had some issues with a Church, questioned the construction of a building belonging to the Church encroaching upon some property, in consequence of which the petitioners committed the above said offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Bail Appl..No.3565 OF 2021 3 order dated 25.01.2021 in B.A.No.8266/2020 and order dated 18.11.2021 in B.A.No.9001/2020 this Court granted bail to some of the co-accused. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor, even though opposed the bail application, submitted that if this Court grant them bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.
5. In the light of the fact that the co-accused were already granted bail, I see no reason to deny bail to the petitioners in these bail applications.
6. 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.
7. 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 Bail Appl..No.3565 OF 2021 4 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 1 st wave of COVID- 19 season.
8. 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.
9. 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:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall Bail Appl..No.3565 OF 2021 5 be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. 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;
4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;
5. The petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence alleged in this case.
6. 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.
7. If any of the above conditions are violated Bail Appl..No.3565 OF 2021 6 by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ss