Allowed

Chandran, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020Bail Appl./677/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the first accused, Chandran, on stringent conditions including a bond, appearance before the investigating officer, and adherence to social distancing protocols, while noting the second accused is a minor and no arrest order exists for him.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO within ten days, and social distancing compliance.

Chandran, Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

BA.No.677/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.677 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.910/2019 OF Kottiyam Police Station , Kollam

¶9

PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 CHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. SIVANANDAN, NALINAM HOUSE, KOTTIYAM P.O., PIN-691571.

¶11

2 KIRAN, AGED 15 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, NALINAM HOUSE, KOTTIYAM P.O, PIN-691571, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER CHANDRAN HE BEING A MINOR.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.RAJAN SRI.R.KALESH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690518.

¶16

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA.No.677/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 10th 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 accused in Crime No.910/2019 of Kottiyam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 on account of enmity with the defacto complainant trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant on 15.12.2019 at 9.15 am with a dangerous weapon. The further case is that the accused pushed down the complainant and the first accused beat the complainant on her left hand and body with a stick. The 2^nd accused beat the complainant on her leg and body with thin iron rod resulting in fracture in the left hand and injuries on both the leg knees.

¶25

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

¶26

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. According

¶27

BA.No.677/2020

¶28

¶29

to the counsel, the 1^st petitioner's father and his wife were attacked by the defacto complainant. Because of the same this false case is filed. According to the counsel, the defacto complainant sustained fracture in connection with that incident. The petitioner produced Annexure A2 complaint filed before the Police Station. He also produced Annexures A4 and A5 medical records also to prove that they sustained injuries.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that as far as the case of the 2^nd petitioner is concerned he is a minor. The records are submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board. The investigating officer has no intention to arrest the 2^nd petitioner. That is recorded. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1^st petitioner is involved in this case. The victim sustained fracture on her left hand. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the 1^st petitioner is necessary.

¶31

After hearing both sides, I think the bail application of the 1^st petitioner can be allowed on stringent conditions. This bail application was filed on 21.1.2020. The crime is registered in 2019. There is no order in this bail application restraining the police in arresting the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st petitioner is not arrested even now. Probably the police may be waiting for the

¶32

BA.No.677/2020

¶33

¶34

disposal of this bail application. There are allegations and counter allegations about the same incident. Which version is correct is to be decided by the investigating officer after a thorough investigation. As stated by me earlier, the above crime is registered in 2019 and the investigation is standstill even now. According to the petitioners the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. These are matters to be investigated by the investigating officer. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, this bail application of the 1^st petitioner can be allowed on stringent conditions. The 2^nd petitioner can approach the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶35

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:

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed

¶39

BA.No.677/2020

¶40

¶41

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, the Bail Application of the 1^st petitioner is allowed with the following directions:

¶43

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

¶44

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the 1^st 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.

¶45

The 1^st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 1^st 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.

¶46

The 1^st petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶47

BA.No.677/2020

¶48

¶49

The 1^st petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶50

The 1^st petitioner 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.

¶51

7.If any of the above conditions are violated by the 1^st petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶52

As far as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned, the submission of

¶53

the Public Prosecutor that he will not be arrested in the light of the fact that he is a minor, is recorded.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶56

JUDGE

¶57