Allowed

Shalom Lal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3815/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC by an accused charged under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The accused was not arrested but the court ordered him to submit to interrogation and avail bail only if the Investigating Officer proposed arrest based on the interrogation findings, subject to stringent conditions including social distancing norms.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions: appear for interrogation within 10 days; execute bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties only if arrest is proposed; appear periodically; comply with social distanci

Shalom Lal 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 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3815 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.613/2020 OF Vallikunnam Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SHALOM LAL AGED 22 YEARS S/O.LAL, CHAITHRAM, VALLIKUNNAM PO, VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-690501. 690501

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRUTHY N. BHAT SMT.POOJA PANKAJ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 682031 2 ADDL.R2 VICTIM IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 1/2020

¶12

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2020, THE COURT ON 3.8.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.3815 of 2020 2

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶16

B.A.No.3815 of 2020

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2020

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.613 of 2020 of Vallikunnam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

¶21

3.The prosecution case is that, the petitioner and the victim became friends through Facebook. Thereafter, the petitioner invited the victim to his house. Victim went to the house of the petitioner. From there, the petitioner committed

¶22

rape on the victim. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 27.10.2019, 02.11.2019, 03.11.2019 and 12.11.2019 the petitioner committed rape on victim. She became pregnant and she

¶23

B.A.No.3815 of 2020 3

¶24

delivered a child on 12.06.2020. Thereafter, on 16.06.2020 the

¶25

victim filed complaint based on which the present crime is registered.

¶26

Notice was issued to the de facto complainant. Notice served. There is no appearance.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out. The petitioner is aged 22 years and the victim is also aged 22 years. The admitted case of the prosecution is that, the victim is going to the house of the petitioner and from there the petitioner committed rape on her. It is true that the victim delivered a child.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submits that, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for investigation.

¶30

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can

¶31

B.A.No.3815 of 2020 4

¶32

be allowed on stringent conditions. I carefully perused the First Information Statement given by the victim. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and victim are major. It is also admitted case that the victim went to the house of the petitioner from where the alleged raped happened. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application can be allowed.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶36

B.A.No.3815 of 2020 5

¶37

(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

¶38

and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶39

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

¶40

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶41

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from

¶42

today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶43

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for

¶44

a sum of Rs,.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the

¶45

like sum to the satisfaction of the officer

¶46

B.A.No.3815 of 2020 6

¶47

concerned.

¶48

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.00 a.m till final report is filed. 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.

¶49

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶50

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused,

¶51

or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶52

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the

¶53

B.A.No.3815 of 2020 7

¶54

various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

¶55

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.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶58

cms

Shalom Lal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalom Lal 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

Adarsh R.P Vs State of Kerala