Allowed

Adarsh R.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020Bail Appl./2142/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused, a student, charged with offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 354 of the IPC. The court granted bail on stringent conditions, including appearance for interrogation, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, non-leave of the country, and adherence to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on stringent conditions including bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance for interrogation, and adherence to social distancing norms.

Adarsh R.P 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

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2142 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.401/2019 OF CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ADARSH R.P AGED 20 YEARS S/O.N.K.PRAKASH KUMAR, AARAMAM, ATHIYANOOR, AARALUMOODU P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL

¶13

BY SRI.RENJITH T.R., PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A. NO.2142 OF 2020 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 3rd day of August 2020

¶18

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

¶19

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 401 of 2019 of Cheruthuruthi Police Station, Thrissur District. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶20

3. The prosecution case is that, on 5.11.2019 at 10.30 a.m. while the de facto complainant and the accused where at parking ground of Cheruthuruthi Kalamandalam, the accused kicked on the de facto complainant and pushed her and uttered obscene words towards her. Hence, it is alleged that, the accused committed the said offence.

¶21

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

¶22

B.A. NO.2142 OF 2020 3

¶23

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

submitted that, the alleged incident is happened on 5.11.2019 and the F.I. Statement given only on 7.11.2019. According to the counsel, a case is

¶25

registered against the de facto complainant and her husband on 6.11.2019 at the instance of the petitioner. Annexure-D is the F.I.R. After registering the above case, the present case is registered. According to the petitioner, it is a dispute between the students of a college. The counsel submitted that, the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 354 IPC. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶26

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that if this Court grants him bail, the same may be on stringent conditions.

¶27

7. Admittedly, the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner in this case is under

¶28

B.A. NO.2142 OF 2020 4

¶29

Section 354 IPC. Offence under Section 323 IPC is also alleged. It is a fact that Annexure-D F.I.R is registered against the de facto complainant and her husband on 6.11.2019 and thereafter, the present case

¶30

is registered alleging an incident happened on 5.11.2019. I do not want to make any observations on the merits of this case.

¶31

8. Considering the entire facts and

¶32

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

¶33

9. Moreover, considering the need to follow

¶34

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

10. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the

¶36

B.A. NO.2142 OF 2020 5

¶37

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

11. 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

1. The petitioner shall appear

¶40

before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

¶41

2. After interrogation, if the

¶42

Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for

¶43

a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty

¶44

B.A. NO.2142 OF 2020 6

¶45

Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶46

3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with

¶47

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;

¶48

4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;

¶49

5. The petitioner shall not commit

¶50

an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶51

B.A. NO.2142 OF 2020 7

¶52

6. The petitioner shall strictly

¶53

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;

¶54

7. If any of the above conditions

¶55

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.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

pkk

Adarsh R.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh R.P 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

Bushara Vs the Station House Officer

Saneesh v. Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ashraf K., Vs State of Kerala

Sudha Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shalom Lal Vs State of Kerala