Allowed

Nithin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1535/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the accused in a case involving hurt and assault offences, citing that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. The court imposed stringent conditions including mandatory interrogation, social distancing adherence, and cooperation with the investigation to prevent prison overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including appearance within ten days for interrogation, execution of bond, social distancing, and no leaving India without permission.

Nithin Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

BA.No.1535/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.1535 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.83/2020 OF Ollur Police Station , Thrissur

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶10

1 NITHIN

¶11

AGED 30 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KANACHIKUNNATH KAITHAPARAMBU HOUSE, PUTHUR P.O,VETTUKAD, THRISSUR.

¶12

2 NIKHIL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O THANKACHAN, PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, PUTHUR P.O., VETTUKAD, THRISSUR.

¶13

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

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA.No.1535/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 19th day of August 2020

¶22

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

¶23

Petitioners are the 1^st and 2^nd accused in Crime No.83/2020 of Ollur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506 r/w 34 IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 326 IPC is also added.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 24.1.2020 at about 4 pm, the accused hired an autorickshaw of the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant and when it reached a lonely place, they wrongfully restrained him, abused him and hit on his nose with a key, causing fracture to his nasal bone.

¶25

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

¶26

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were issued notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C earlier and they appeared before the investigating officer and they were interrogated. Subsequently, an offence under Section 326 IPC is also added. The petitioners are ready to abide any

¶27

BA.No.1535/2020

¶28

¶29

condition, if this Court grant bail to them.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor eventhough opposed the bail application submitted that if this Court is granting bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶31

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent condition. Admittedly, the case was originally registered with bailable offence. At that stage, the petitioners were already interrogated. Subsequently, the offence under Section 326 IPC is added. The incident in this happened on 24.1.2020. At this distance of time, I don't think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.

¶32

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.

¶33

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme

¶34

BA.No.1535/2020

¶35

¶36

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

BA.No.1535/2020

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 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

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Nithin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin 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

Roshan Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Aswanth P., Vs State of Kerala

Jishil, Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Amal Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala