Kerala High Court
Musthafa P vs State Of Kerala on 22 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
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.5606 OF 2020
CRIME NO.433/2020 OF Valanchery Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONERS:
1 MUSTHAFA P
AGED 28 YEARS
SON OF KAMMU, PADINJARETHIL HOUSE,
VADAKKUMPURAM P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM,
PIN-676552
2 VIPIN P
AGED 20 YEARS
SON OF UNNIKRISHNAN, PALAKKODAN HOUSE,
VADAKKUMPURAM P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676552
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALANCHERY POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
PIN-676552
SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5606 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5606 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.433 of 2020 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable u/ss.341, 323, 427, 354 r/w. Sec.34 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that the petitioners wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted her. It is also alleged that the petitioners committed mischief. It is also the case of the prosecution that petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.5606 of 2020 3
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence alleged in this case is u/s. 354 IPC. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence u/s.354 IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that the other offences alleged against the petitioner along with Section 354 IPC are Sections 341, 323 & 427 IPC. According to the counsel, the offence u/s.354 IPC will not go together with the other IPC offences alleged in this case because the intention to commit the offences are different. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail.
6.The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The 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. The only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is u/s.354 IPC. Whether the offence u/s.354 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the investigating B.A.No.5606 of 2020 4 officer. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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 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 B.A.No.5606 of 2020 5 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.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 B.A.No.5606 of 2020 6 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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 various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.B.A.No.5606 of 2020 7
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 cms