Kerala High Court
Shylaja vs State Of Kerala Through The Public ... on 8 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 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.5225 OF 2020
CRIME NO.772 OF 2019 OF VALAPPATANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT
PETITIONERS:
1 SHYLAJA
AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
ARAMBHAN HOUSE , THAAYAMPOYIL
MAYYIL, KANNUR-670602.
2 SHIVADASAN, S/O.GOPALAN,
AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT 230/(372)
PANAYAN HOUSE,
PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR.
670561
BY ADV. SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN -682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, VALAPATTANAM P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
PIN-670010
R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 8th day of September 2020 ...
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The 1st petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.772 of 2019 of Valappatanam Police Station, Kannur District. The public prosecutor submitted that the 2nd petitioner is not an accused. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 370, 366A, 368, 323, 342, 343, 344, 346, 120(b) r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence under Section 9(n) r/w. Section 10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act is also alleged against the petitioner.
3. The prosecution case is that, the 1st accused and the victim girl were in love. They eloped and B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 3 went to Bangalore and thereafter proceeded to Thirupathi. The allegation against the 1st petitioner is that, she and her husband have not disclosed the whereabouts of the 1st accused and the victim and therefore, the 1st petitioner and her husband were implicated in this case.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st petitioner submitted that, the petitioner has not committed any offence. Her son was in love with the victim girl. The petitioner is not aware about the whereabouts of her son and the victim girl. The petitioner submitted that, she is ready to abide any conditions if this Court is granting bail to her.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the 2nd accused and the 1st petitioner herein are actively involved in this case and they suppressed the whereabouts of the 1st accused and the victim girl.
B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 4
7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed, on stringent conditions. The admitted case is that the 1 st accused eloped with the victim girl. It is also an admitted fact that, the 1st accused and the victim girl were in love. The allegation against the 1st petitioner is that, she and her husband have not disclosed the whereabouts of the 1st accused and the victim girl. According to the petitioner, she was not aware of the same. It is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. For that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the 1st petitioner is not necessary in this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is allowed.
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 B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 5 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 1st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 6
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the 1st petitioner, she 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 1st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.
The 1st 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;
4. The 1st petitioner shall not B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 7 leave India without permission of the Court;
5. The 1st petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected;
6. The 1st 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;
7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 1st petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
The bail application of the 2nd petitioner is closed B.A. NO.5225 OF 2020 8 recording the submission of the public prosecutor that, he is not an accused.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
pkk JUDGE