Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Johnson V R vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2020

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 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

                       Bail Appl..No.5559 OF 2020

CRIME NO.350/2020 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA


PETITIONER/S:

      1         JOHNSON V R
                AGED 30 YEARS
                SON OF RAJU GEORGE,
                VELOORVADAKKETHIL,
                THAZHE VETTIPURAM MURI,
                MYLAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE
                PIN : 689645

      2         ARUN CHANDRAN
                AGED 27 YEARS
                SON OF RAMACHANDRAN,
                VALLYATHU MURUPPEL,
                MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O,
                PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE
                PIN : 689645

      3         UNNI RAVI
                AGED 23 YEARS
                SON OF RAVI, VAIKATHU VADAKKETHIL,
                NANNUVAKADU P.O,
                PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE
                PIN : 689645

      4         ARJUN MANI
                AGED 34 YEARS
                SON OF MANI, MANI VILASAM,
                VETTIPURAM MURI, MYLAPRA,
                PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE
                PIN : 689645

      5         BIJU VIJAYAN @ VAVA
                AGED 28 YEARS
                SON OF VIJAYAN,
                NIRAVEL VEEDU,
                VETTIPURAM MURI,
                MYLAPRA,
                PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE
                PIN : 689645
 B.A.No. 5559 of 2020
                                  2



                BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

RESPONDENT/S:

       1        STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                HIGH COURT OF KERALA
                ERNAKULAM - 682031

       2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE
                STATION
                POLICE STATION OF PATHANAMTHITTA,
                PATHANAMTHITTA P.O
                PIN : 689645

                R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OTHER PRESENT:

                SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION          ON
11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No. 5559 of 2020
                                     3



                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                ==================
                    B.A.No. 5559 of 2020
                ==================
         Dated this the 11th day of September, 2020


                               ORDER

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

2. The petitioners are the accused in crime No. 350/2020 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294 (b), 323, 324, 427, 447, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners and the other accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant on 04.03.2020 at 11.20 p.m. and attacked the inmates due to previous enmity.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the only non bailable offense alleged against the petitioners are under Section 354 of the IPC. The learned counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offense under Section 354 IPC is made out. The learned counsel also submitted that, the petitioners are politicians and several false cases are registered against them due to political enmity. Taking into consideration the above criminal antecedents, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed this bail application. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, there are several cases pending against the petitioners.

7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the only non bailable offence alleged in this B.A.No. 5559 of 2020 5 case is under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the petitioners, they were doing some work in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners have not committed the above said offences.

8. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioners are political workers. Simply because there are criminal antecedents against the petitioners the bail cannot be rejected. This point is considered by the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi V. State of UP and others ( 2012 (2) SCC 382). Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out or not is a point to be considered by the investigating officer at the time of investigation.

9. 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 B.A.No. 5559 of 2020 6 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

7

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall 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 an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

8

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. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.a.m. till final report is filed in Crime. No. 350 of 2020.

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.

(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE LU