Allowed

Binoy Alias Philip, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1438/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail on stringent conditions to two accused persons facing charges under IPC Sections 195A and others, considering the principle that bail is the rule while noting the necessity for investigation and social distancing measures.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on conditions requiring interrogation, bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, co-operation in investigation, and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.

Binoy Alias Philip, 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.1438 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.61/2020 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 BINOY ALIAS PHILIP, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, PALLIPARAMBIL HOSE, NELLIKUTTY P.O. PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, EATTUPARA DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR 670 632.

¶9

2 MANISH JOSE, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. JOSE, MANNUR HOUSE, NELLIKUTTY P.O. ERUVESSY AMSOM, ERUVESSY DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR 670 632

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.AJOY

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., 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.1438 OF 2020 2

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶18

B.A.No.1438 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 Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶22

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.61 of 2020 of

¶23

Pariyaram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections

¶24

195A, 323, 341, 506 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case is that at about 3 p.m. on 28.1.2020 from the parking ground of Pariyaram Medical College, accused No.1 attacked the defacto complainant with hand and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not withdraw the POCSO case registered against one Hithesh who is the relative of the first accused.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶27

B.A.No.1438 OF 2020 3

¶28

Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 195 A is not attracted in this case. The counsel submitted that to attract offence under Section 195 A IPC, there should be evidence to the effect that the accused persuaded the defacto complainant to give false evidence before the Court. There is no such case by the prosecution.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners committed the offence. The Public Prosecutor submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary.

¶31

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. This Bail Application was filed on 20.2.2020. There is no interim order restraining the police in arresting the petitioners. Even now, the petitioners are not arrested. As per the proviso to Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C., if there is no interim order from the court,

¶32

B.A.No.1438 OF 2020 4

¶33

the police can arrest the accused during the pendency of the bail application. The non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 195A of the IPC. The same can be proved only through oral evidence. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

B.A.No.1438 OF 2020 5

¶37

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 directions:

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

B.A.No.1438 OF 2020 6

¶43

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

¶44

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶50

al/-+

Binoy Alias Philip, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoy Alias Philip, 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

Jishil, Vs State of Kerala