Allowed

Wilson v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2020Bail Appl./7593/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application of the petitioner accused in a criminal case under sections of IPC and Arms Act, imposing stringent conditions including a bond of Rs.50,000, prohibition to enter jurisdictional limits for three months, and mandatory appearances before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; directed not to enter jurisdictional limit of Pallithottam Police Station for 3 months.

Wilson Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1499/2020 OF Pallithottam Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

WILSON AGED 30 YEARS GALILIO NAGAR -11 PALLITHOTTAM CHERRY PALLITHOTTAM PO KOLLAM PIN-691006

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJESH

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION PALLITHOTTAM PO KOLLAM PIN-691006

¶13

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 27th day of November 2020.

¶19

This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶20

2. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1499 of Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341,323,324,326,506(ii),201 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also alleged.

¶21

3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.09.2020 at 12:15 p.m the petitioner and the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object attacked the defacto complainant and in pursuant to the

¶22

same, 1^st accused wrongly restrained the defacto complainant and uttered obscene words. It is also alleged that the 1^st accused assaulted on the head of the defacto complainant using a metallic block. It was

¶23

¶24

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶25

alleged that, the other accused also assaulted the defacto complainant.

¶26

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is in custody from 04.10.2020 onwards. The learned counsel

¶27

for the petitioner submitted that, the one of the accused is already released on bail by this Court as per order dated 23.11.2020. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner also may be released on bail on any condition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶28

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, there are criminal antecedents to the petitioner.

¶29

6. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Two of the accused in the same crime, are already released on bail by this Court. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the order

¶30

¶31

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶32

passed in B.A.No.7742/2020 and B.A.No.7713/2020, I think this bail application can be allowed. It is true that, the petitioner was the 1^st accused in this case. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, the petitioner is in custody from 04.10.2020, I think, the bail application of the petitioner also can be allowed. But there is some difference as far as the allegation against this petitioner and the other accused, who were already released on bail by this Court. There are serious allegations against the petitioner, who is the 1^st accused. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of the Pallithottam Police Station, for a period of 3 months.

¶33

7. 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 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

¶34

¶35

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶36

number of inmates inside prisons.

¶37

8. 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.

¶38

9. 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 be released

¶40

on bail on executing a bond for

¶41

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

¶42

like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶43

2. The petitioner shall appear

¶44

¶45

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶46

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

¶47

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

3. The petitioner shall not leave

¶49

India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

¶50

4. The petitioner shall not commit

¶51

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

¶52

5. The 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

¶53

Bail Appl..No.7593 OF 2020

¶54

¶55

19 pandemic;

¶56

6. The petitioner shall not enter

¶57

into the jurisdictional limit of the Pallithottam Police Station, for a period of 3 months.

¶58

7. The petitioner shall appear

¶59

before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10:00 a.m.. For the purpose of appearing before the Investigating Officer, the petitioner can enter into the jurisdiction limit of the

¶60

Pallithottam Police Station.

¶61

8. If any of the above conditions

¶62

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.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶65

JUDGE