Allowed

S.Ushakumari, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2020Bail Appl./531/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these two connected bail applications for offences under Section 498A IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute, the High Court allowed bail on stringent conditions. The Court considered social distancing norms due to the pandemic and the principle that bail is the rule, granting release subject to appearance, bond execution, and abstention from further offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including appearance before Investigating Officer within ten days, execution of bond for Rs.50,000 each with two sureties, and strict adherence to social distancin

S.Ushakumari, Vs the State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | 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 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.9093 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SAJI PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR AGED 40 YEARS S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, SAROJ, VELLANADU, NEDUMANGAUD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.No.531/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.Nos.9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶20

Bail Appl..No.531 OF 2020

¶21

PETITIONER/S:

¶22

1 S.USHAKUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, KOKKUDI HOUSE, VELLANADU, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶23

2 SREEJITH P.NAIR, S/O.LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, KOKKUDI HOUSE, VELLANADU, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

¶25

RESPONDENT/S:

¶26

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

¶27

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.No.9093/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

B.A.Nos.9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶29

¶30

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶31

========================== B.A.Nos. 9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶32

========================== Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2020

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶35

Petitioners in these bail applications are accused in Crime No. 954 of 2019 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner in Bail application No. 9093 of 2019 is the 1^st accused in the above crime and the petitioners in Bail application No. 531 of 2020 are the 2^nd & 3^rd accused in the above crime.

¶36

The prosecution case is that, the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant.

¶37

B.A.Nos.9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, this is only a matrimonial offence. He submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant bail to them. He also submitted that, there is no serious allegations against the petitioners.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that there is no serious allegations against the petitioners. But the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, there is an allegation of harassment, cruelty etc. against the petitioners.

¶42

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, this is a matrimonial offence, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶43

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

¶44

B.A.Nos.9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶49

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:

¶50

1. The petitioners shall appear before the

¶51

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

¶52

B.A.Nos.9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶53

¶54

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes 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;

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

5. The petitioners shall not commit an

¶58

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

¶59

B.A.Nos.9093 of 2019 & 531 of 2020

¶60

¶61

6. The petitioners shall strictly abide by the

¶62

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

¶63

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.

¶64

(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶65

¶66

// True Copy // PA to Judge

S.Ushakumari, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ushakumari, v. the 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

Ashraf K., Vs State of Kerala

Sudha Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh R.P Vs State of Kerala

Annamma George@ Sini, Vs State of Kerala

Sadeer Kinakool Chalandayil Vs State of Kerala

Lincy Lalu Vs State of Kerala