Kerala High Court
Baburaj vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 779
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 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7236 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1136/2020 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 BABURAJ
AGED 62 YEARS
MEEN KUZHIYIL
VADAKARA P O, KOZHIKODE
673101
2 ABHILASH
AGED 37 YEARS
MEEN KUZHIYIL HOUSE
VADAKARA P O
673101
3 PREMANAND
AGED 61 YEARS
MEEN KUZHIYIL HOUSE
VADAKARA P O
673101
BY ADV. SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.7236 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 4th day of November 2020 ...
This 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.1136 of 2020 of Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 353 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution case is that, when an Advocate Commissioner inspected the property of the petitioners, the petitioners used filthy language and even assaulted the Advocate Commissioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even if the entire allegations in the complaint given by the Advocate Commissioner are B.A.NO.7236 OF 2020 3 accepted, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out. The counsel read the complaint filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The counsel submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they used any criminal force or assault. The counsel submitted that in such circumstances, section 353 IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court is granting them bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor has made available the complaint given by the Advocate Commissioner which was originally submitted before the court.
7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I perused the complaint submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. The petitioners cannot even use filthy language against an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner is an officer B.A.NO.7236 OF 2020 4 of the court. The action of the petitioners cannot be appreciated. But the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is bailable. As far as Section 353 IPC is concerned whether the said offence is attracted or not is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.
8. 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.
9. 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 B.A.NO.7236 OF 2020 5 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.
10. 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;
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 B.A.NO.7236 OF 2020 6 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
6. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners B.A.NO.7236 OF 2020 7 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays' at 10 a.m. for a period of one month
7. 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;
8. 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
pkk JUDGE