Allowed

Jishil, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1413/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of theft (IPC Sections 379, 447), argued the stolen excavator was already seized. The court granted bail on stringent conditions, including interrogation, prohibition on leaving India, and social distancing norms due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed on stringent conditions, including appearing for interrogation within ten days and executing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Jishil, 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.1413 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 114/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.542/2019 OF Panniankara Police Station , Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

JISHIL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.KOYAMU E, ELAYADATH HOUSE, NALLALAM POST, KOZHIKODE-673027

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL SRI.P.JAHANGEER

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶15

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

¶16

B.A.No. 1413 OF 2020 2

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶18

B.A.No.1413 of 2020

¶19

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2020

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶22

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.542 of 2019 of

¶24

Panniyankara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case is that as per order in O.P. 735/2019 of District Court, Kozhikode, an excavator (JCB) worth Rs.20 lakhs bearing Reg. No. KL-11/BL 227 was seized with the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner. Thereafter, it was being kept in the parking yard of an institution 'Rash

¶26

World' by name at Kannancherry. While so, in between 20.00 hours on 23.12.2019 and 8.00 hours on 24.12.2019, the

¶27

B.A.No. 1413 OF 2020 3

¶28

petitioner had trespassed in the yard and taken away the seized vehicle.

¶29

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

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle belongs to the brother of the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the court proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle is already seized by the police.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the vehicle is already seized by the police. The public Prosecutor submitted that, if this Court is granting him bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶32

After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The theft article is already seized by the police. The crime is registered in the year 2019. At this distance of time custodial interrogation may not be necessary. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be

¶33

B.A.No. 1413 OF 2020 4

¶34

allowed on stringent conditions.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

B.A.No. 1413 OF 2020 5

¶40

directions:

¶41

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

¶42

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he 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.

¶43

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 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.

¶44

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶45

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶46

B.A.No. 1413 OF 2020 6

¶47

The 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.

¶48

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶51

al/-+

Jishil, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jishil, 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

Roshan Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Aswanth P., Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Alias Philip, Vs State of Kerala