Allowed

Jyothish v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2020Bail Appl./7777/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed the bail application of the second accused, Jyothish, charged under Section 368 IPC for kidnapping minor girls. The court imposed stringent conditions, including appearance for interrogation, strict compliance with social distancing norms, and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation, bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, no travel abroad, and compliance with COVID-19 social distancing norms.

Jyothish Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | 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.7777 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.760/2019 OF Kanjiramkulam Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JYOTHISH AGED 18 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, KUZHIVILA THOTTATHU VEEDU, THOZHUKAL, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695121

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Bail Appl..No.7777 OF 2020

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 27th day of November 2020

¶18

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

¶19

2. The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.760/2019 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thriruvananthapuram District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Section 368 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶20

3. The prosecution case is that, the minor daughter of the defacto complainant was residing at Mahila Samakya Centre at Maruthoorkadavu. On 30.09.2019, she along with her friend of the same age came out of the Centre and reached Thampanoor bus stand. It appears that the minor girls were contacted by accused Nos.1 and 2 and it was at their instance, that they had reached the bus stand. The accused Nos.1 and 2 reached the bus stand on separate bikes and they

¶21

¶22

Bail Appl..No.7777 OF 2020

¶23

asked the girls to come to Chatnannor by bus. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2 followed them in their respective bikes. When the girls reached Chathannoor, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have roamed along with them in various places. Later the 1^st accused returned with the daughter of the defacto complainant in a bus and the 2^nd accused came with her friend on the bike back to Trivandrum. They then took the girls to a locked house at Kanjiramkulam and reached there at about 09.30 p.m. The specific allegation is that the 2^nd accused was taken by the petitioner herein in his bike and to Kanjiramkulam. It is further alleged that the minor girls were wrongly concealed and kept in confinement by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and active assistance was rendered by the petitioner herein.

¶24

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

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the allegation against the petitioner

¶26

¶27

Bail Appl..No.7777 OF 2020

¶28

are not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted the offence under Section 368 of IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition if this Court grants him bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the 4^th accused is already released on bail as per Annexure A3 order of this Court.

¶29

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, if this Court granting bail in the light of Annexure A3 order, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶30

7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. One of the accused is already released under Section 438 Cr.P.C as per order dated 05.06.2020 in B.A No.2167/2020. The main allegation is against the 1^st accused the petitioner is the 2^nd accused. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl..No.7777 OF 2020

¶33

8. 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 number of inmates inside prisons.

¶34

9. 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.

¶35

10. 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:

¶36

Bail Appl..No.7777 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

1. The petitioner shall appear

¶39

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

¶40

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating 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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶41

3. The petitioner shall appear before the 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

¶42

Bail Appl..No.7777 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

Court or to any police officer;

¶45

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

¶46

5. The 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;

¶47

6. 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 19 pandemic;

¶48

7. If any of the above conditions

¶49

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.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Jms //True Copy// P.A to Judge

Jyothish v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothish 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

Zeenath P.M. Vs State of Kerala

Prasannan T.K. Vs State of Kerala

Akheela Palanchalil Vs State of Kerala

Nishaj Vs State of Kerala

Wilson Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala

Suhara Vs State of Kerala