Allowed

Roshan Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1175/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail on stringent conditions. The court noted a final report was filed and the sole non-bailable charge was obstruction of justice (Section 452 IPC). Conditions included appearance for interrogation and adherence to pandemic guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation and social distancing.

Roshan Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1175 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.2087/2019 OF Thiruvalla Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 :

¶8

1 ROSHAN VARGHESE AGED 24 YEARS S/O.REJI VARGHESE CHUNKATHILAYACHIRAPPATTIL HOSUE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVALLA-689115

¶9

2 ALEX M GEORGE AGED 19 YEARS S/O.MANOJ GEORGE, KANAYKONIL THUNDIYIL HOUSE, ALAMTHURUTHY.P.O, THIRUVALLA-689113

¶10

3 ANANDHU ANIRUDHAN AGED 19 YEARS S/O.ANIRUDHAN, POOTHARAYIL KUZHIYIL, PODIYADI.P.O, THIRUVALLA-689110

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR SMT.NITHYA VIJAYAN SMT.MINIKUMARY M.V.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031

¶15

B.A.No.1175 OF 2020 2

¶16

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689601

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B.A.No.1175 OF 2020 3

¶21

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶22

B.A.No.1175 of 2020

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2020

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶26

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.2087 of 2019 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against

¶27

the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294 (b), 452 and 427 r/w 149 of the IPC.

¶28

The prosecution case is that on 20.12.2019 at 10.30 p.m., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and destroyed the window glasses and the door of the kitchen and also destroyed the households.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

¶31

B.A.No.1175 OF 2020 4

¶32

only non-bailable offfence is under Section 452 of the IPC. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are three other cases registered against the defacto complainant and his party. In those cases anticipatory bail applications are allowed.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, final report is already filed in this case before the court concerned.

¶34

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the final report is filed. The investigating officer filed the final report saying that the petitioners are absconding. In such situation, there is an apprehension of arrest. Since the final report is already filed and no custodial interrogation is necessary, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I also noted the fact that the only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 452 IPC. I also noticed the fact that there is a clash between two groups and several cases are registered. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the accused in the other connected cases are released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the entire facts and

¶35

B.A.No.1175 OF 2020 5

¶36

circumstances, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

¶41

B.A.No.1175 OF 2020 6

¶42

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶43

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶44

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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶45

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶46

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶47

Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar

¶48

B.A.No.1175 OF 2020 7

¶49

to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶54

al/-+

Roshan Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh S.R. Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash, Vs State of Kerala

Aswanth P., Vs State of Kerala

Jishil, Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Alias Philip, Vs State of Kerala