Allowed

Dhanyaprakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons charged under the Explosive Substance Act. The court granted bail on stringent conditions, citing the principle that bail is the rule, pending investigation without arrest, and health guidelines regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. A conditional bond was required upon potential arrest.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed on stringent conditions including bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, appearance before IO, and adherence to social distancing norms.

Dhanyaprakash 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1370 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 3572/2019 DATED 02-11-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

CRIME NO.41/2019 OF Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 DHANYAPRAKASH AGED 27 YEARS S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, KIZHAKKEKALAM, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD.

¶10

2 SHIJU, AGED 32 YEARS S/O SIVAN, CHAMAPARAMBU, PARUVASSERY, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶15

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No.1370 of 2020 2

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

B.A.No.1370 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.41 of 2019 of Vadakkancherry Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶24

The prosecution case is that the petitioners herein hurled ignited petrol bomb into the residential yard of the de facto complainant Smt.Rukmini at Vadakkumuri in Kannambra on 23.1.2019 at around 10.15 p.m.

¶25

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not involved in this case. They are ready to

¶27

B.A.No.1370 of 2020 3

¶28

abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail.

¶29

6.The learned Public Prosecutor eventhough opposed the bail application submitted that there is no injury to anybody in this case because of the alleged incident. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of the petitioners are necessary for completing the investigation.

¶30

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶31

This bail application was filed on 19.2.2020. No interim order is passed in this bail application restraining the police in arresting the petitioners. Even now, the petitioners are not arrested. The case is registered in 2019. Even now the investigation is pending. Probably the police may be waiting for the final disposal of the bail application. The petitioners have got a case that they were falsely implicated in this case. I can not decide the same in a bail application. But considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶32

Moreover, considering the need to follow social

¶33

B.A.No.1370 of 2020 4

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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:

¶38

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶39

B.A.No.1370 of 2020 5

¶40

Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶41

After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶42

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

¶43

like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶44

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

¶45

Petitioners shall not leave India without

¶46

B.A.No.1370 of 2020 6

¶47

permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶48

Petitioners shall not commit an offence

¶49

similar to the offence of which they are

¶50

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

¶51

The petitioners shall strictly abide by

¶52

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.

¶53

If any of the above conditions are

¶54

violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law,

¶55

even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶58

cms

Dhanyaprakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanyaprakash 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

Annamma George@ Sini, Vs State of Kerala

S.Ushakumari, Vs the State of Kerala

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil Vs State of Kerala

Tincy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Vishnudas Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Kumar T.K. Vs State of Kerala