Kerala High Court
Joy P vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 29TH ASWINA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.6886 OF 2020
CRIME NO.611/2020 OF Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOY P
AGED 72 YEARS
KANKALIL HOUSE, MBC RRA 96, MAMANGALAM, BTS CROSS
ROAD, EDAPPALLY PO, COCHIN
682024
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP,
SRI.SUNIL.V.MOHAMMED FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 6886 of 2020
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.6886 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.611/2020 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354A(1) (i), 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 9(m) read with 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The petitioner was arrested on 16.10.2020 and he is in custody from 16.10.2020 onwards.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused on 14.10.2020 at about 3.30 p.m., sexually assaulted the minor victim girl aged 9 years.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed, appeared for the defacto complainant, and the learned public prosecutor
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no B.A.No. 6886 of 2020 3 such incident happened. The petitioner is aged 72 years. The complaint is filed because of some misunderstanding.
6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also submitted that the child gave such a statement because of some misunderstanding, and the petitioner is now a Covid-19 positive patient. The family of the victim girl is now in quarantine.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
8. After hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the submission of the counsel who appeared for the defacto complainant, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
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 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 B.A.No. 6886 of 2020 4 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 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;
2. 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 B.A.No. 6886 of 2020 5 such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
3. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE VPK