Kerala High Court
Abhinand vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 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 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1529 OF 2020
CRIME NO.110/2020 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ABHINAND
AGED 17 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, SASIDHARAN, VADAKEDAN
KANDI HOUSE, CHEGOTTUKAVE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
2 MUHAMMED AFSAL
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O. SAKKEER, BARGAYI BAS HOUSE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.1529 of 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 7th day of August 2020 ...
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.110 of 2020 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,323,324,308,294(b), 506 r/w.Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 31.1.2020 in connection with the festival of the Thiruvangoor High School, while the cinematic dance of the students were going on, certain students had created problems. When the programme had restarted, the petitioners B.A. No.1529 of 2020 3 attempted to repeat the mischief and hence the teachers of the school had intervened. It is further alleged that, the students attacked the teacher and the teacher sustained injuries. Accordingly, Crime No.109 of 2020 was registered by the Koyilandy Police Station. The case of the prosecution is that subsequent to this incident, the petitioners attacked the injured in this case from the hospital.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, some of the accused were released on bail as per the order dated 21.07.2020 in B.A. No. 1525 of 2020.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor conceded that some of the accused were released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
7. In the light of the fact that some other accused were released on bail as per the order dated 21.7.2020 in B.A. No.1525 of 2020, I think, this bail B.A. No.1529 of 2020 4 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.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above B.A. No.1529 of 2020 5 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 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 B.A. No.1529 of 2020 6 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 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 B.A. No.1529 of 2020 7 bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
pkk JUDGE