Kerala High Court
Abin vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 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 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.8016 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1534/2020 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:
ABIN
AGED 24 YEARS
ANUGRAHA
KARAMKODU.P.O
KARAMCODU CHERRY,CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE
KOLLAM
691579
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8016 of 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 27th day of November 2020 ...
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.1534 of 2020 of Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner and the others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 506(i), 509, 308 r/w.Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act is also alleged.
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused persons were in inimical terms with the defacto complainant and the others since they had questioned the sale of ganja by the accused persons. Due to this prior enmity, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common B.A.No.8016 of 2020 3 object assaulted one Sahul @ Unni and his mother who were standing at the public road near Kinarmukku Chirakkara. The 1st accused slapped Sahul on his left cheek. The 15th accused threatened to kill him. The 5th accused used a steel pipe and caused dislocation of his right shoulder. When he fell down, accused Nos.1,2,3,4,6,15,16 and 17 beaten and kicked him. There are other specific overt act against the other accused also.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner earlier filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. That was dismissed. The subsequent bail application filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer on 10.11.2020. After interrogation, the petitioner was produced before the lower court and the lower court remanded him after B.A.No.8016 of 2020 4 dismissing the bail application preferred by him before that Court. The counsel submitted that, the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that, the main allegation is against the 1st accused. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court is granting him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the injured sustained dislocation of shoulder bone due to the act of the petitioner.
7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions considering the fact that, the petitioner is in custody from 10.11.2020 onwards. Moreover, when the petitioner filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. earlier, this Court directed him to surrender before the investigating officer and asked him to co-operate with the investigation. He obeyed the order. Thereafter, when the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, the learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application B.A.No.8016 of 2020 5 filed by him. 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 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.
B.A.No.8016 of 2020 6
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 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 such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
3. The petitioner shall not leave B.A.No.8016 of 2020 7 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
pkk JUDGE