Allowed

Shafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Aug 2020Bail Appl./5012/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge High Court bail application allowed the petitioner's application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving assault and outrage of modesty, imposing stringent conditions including social distancing, cooperation in investigation, and financial bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including bond of Rs. 50,000, appearance for interrogation, no travel outside India, abiding by social distancing guidelines, and cooperation with investigation.

Shafi 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

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5012 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO. 2230 OF 2020 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SHAFI AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SHAJI, KASIM MANZIL, THODUVE, ZAM ZAM NAGAR, NADAYARA, VARKALA. 695141

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.5012 of 2020

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

================== B.A.No. 5012 of 2020

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.

¶25

2230 of 2020 of Varkala Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506, 294 (b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶26

The prosecution case is that, on 24.06.2020 at about 8.30 p.m. while the defacto complainant and her husband went to their relatives house for discussing about the marriage function of their daughter, the accused came to the house jumping the back side wall

¶27

B.A.No.5012 of 2020

¶28

¶29

and entered the room. It is further alleged that, the accused requested the defacto complainant's daughter to marry him. When she rejected the proposal, it is alleged that the petitioner outraged her modesty and assaulted her. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatened her.

¶30

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

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is a case and counter case. He submitted that, Annexure-A1 is the FIR in this case and Annexure-A3 is the FIR in the counter case. The learned counsel submitted that, Anneuxre-A3 is registered at first because the crime number of that case is 2228/2020 whereas the crime number of this case is 2230/2020. The learned counsel also submitted that, in Annexure-A3 the offence under Section 326 IPC is also there. The learned counsel produced Annexure-A2, wound certificate of the petitioner, which shows that, there is a fracture. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 25.06.2020. In the version to the Doctor, it is alleged

¶32

B.A.No.5012 of 2020

¶33

¶34

that, he sustained injury in an incident happened on 24.06.2020 at 8.30 p.m. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the offence under Section 452 and 354 IPC are non bailable offences.

¶36

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. This is a case and counter case. Annexure-A1 is the FIR in this case and Annexure-A3 is the FIR in the counter case. The offence under Section 326 is also alleged in Annexure-A3 FIR. Annexure-A2 is the wound certificate of the petitioner. There are two versions about the same incident. I cannot decide the same while considering a bail application. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶37

Moreover, considering the need to follow social

¶38

B.A.No.5012 of 2020

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

B.A.No.5012 of 2020

¶44

¶45

following directions:

¶46

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

¶47

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶48

Officer proposes 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;

¶49

3. The petitioner shall appear before the

¶50

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;

¶51

4. The petitioner shall not leave India

¶52

without permission of the Court;

¶53

B.A.No.5012 of 2020

¶54

¶55

5. The petitioner shall not commit an

¶56

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

¶57

6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the

¶58

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

¶59

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in

¶60

accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶61

(Sd/-)

¶62

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶63

Shafi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafi 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

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Amal Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Febin Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Shaiju @ Saju, Vs the State of Kerala