Kerala High Court
Abdullakkutty 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.6683 OF 2020
CRIME NO.394/2020 OF Malappuram Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 ABDULLAKKUTTY
AGED 58 YEARS
VARIKKODAN HOUSE,WEST KODUR,KODUR
AMSOM,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM
676504
2 MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE
AGED 35 YEARS
VARIKKODAN HOUSE,WEST KODUR,KODUR
AMSOM,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM
676504
3 RIYAS BABU
AGED 32 YEARS
VARIKKODAN HOUSE,WEST KODUR,KODUR
AMSOM,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM
676504
4 SUHARABI
AGED 48 YEARS
VARIKKODAN HOUSE,WEST KODUR,KODUR
AMSOM,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM
676504
5 MUBASHIRA
AGED 32 YEARS
VARIKKODAN HOUSE,WEST KODUR,KODUR
AMSOM,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM
676504
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
B.A.No. 6683 of 2020
2
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 6683 of 2020
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.6683 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2020
ORDER
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.394/2020 of Malappuram Police Station, Malappruam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 354, 506 and 448 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution case is that on 18.07.2020 at about 8.00 a.m., accused due to previous enmity towards the defacto complainant and family in connection with boundary dispute, trespassed into the residential house of defacto complainant situated at Kodoor in Malappuram, armed with deadly weapons, like iron rod etc., wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted her. It is also alleged that the accused outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant.
B.A.No. 6683 of 20204
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case and counter case. The counter case is registered as Crime No.23/2020 of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station. The counsel submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The 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 the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is a case and counter case. There are allegation and counter allegation about the same incident, I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. This Court while considering a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot decide which version is correct. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be 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 B.A.No. 6683 of 2020 5 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 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 B.A.No. 6683 of 2020 6 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
6. The petitioners shall strictly abide by the B.A.No. 6683 of 2020 7 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 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 VPK