Allowed

Ratheesh P.R., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2020Bail Appl./842/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed anticipatory bail application for two accused (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) on stringent conditions including interrogation and social distancing norms, but cancelled bail for the prime accused (Accused No. 1) due to grave allegations of assault with an iron rod.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for petitioners 1 and 2 (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) subject to conditions including interrogation, arrest bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, and strict adherence to social distancing norms; bail

Ratheesh P.R., 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

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.842 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.21/2020 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1 RATHEESH P.R., AGED 38 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, PALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PUDUKKAD VILLAGE, PAZHAYI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SHANIL N.S., AGED 33 YEARS S/O. SURESH, NEEROLI HOUSE, PUDUKKAD VILLAGE, PAZHAYI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 SAYTH M.Y., AGED 23 YEARS S/O. YOUSEFF, MAMASARA ILLATH HOUSE, MANAVAZHI, VALLICHIRA P.O. AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶15

BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A. No.842 of 2020 2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 11th day of August 2020

¶20

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of

¶21

Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶22

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.21 of 2020 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur District.

¶23

The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 448, 308 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶24

3. The prosecution case is that, on 8.1.2020 at 8 p.m., the accused trespassed into the sit out of the house of the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused tried to hit the de facto complainant with an iron rod on his head. The other accused attacked the de facto complainant on his back using a dangerous weapon.

¶25

4. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.

¶27

B.A. No.842 of 2020 3

¶28

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the injured has not sustained any serious injury. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are innocent in this case and they are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants them bail.

¶29

6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the accused used dangerous weapons. The public prosecutor submitted that, the injured sustained serious injuries.

¶30

7. After hearing both sides, I think, the bail application of 1^st and 2^nd petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in this case, can be allowed. While considering the allegations against the 3^rd petitioner, who is the 1^st accused in this case, the allegations against 1^st and 2^nd petitioners are less. The allegation against the 3^rd petitioner, who is the 1^st accused in this case, is that, he attacked the injured using an iron rod on his head. The corresponding injury was also noted by the medical officer. As far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are

¶31

B.A. No.842 of 2020 4

¶32

concerned, the complaint is that, they attacked the de facto complainant on his back. But there is no corresponding injury is seen in the wound certificate of the de facto complainant. Anyway, this is a matter to be investigated by the Police. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the bail application of 1^st and 2^nd petitioners can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶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 COVID19 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

¶35

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

¶36

870), after considering all the earlier judgments,

¶37

B.A. No.842 of 2020 5

¶38

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.

¶39

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:

¶40

1. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners,

¶41

who are accused Nos.2 and 3 shall

¶42

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

¶43

2. After interrogation, if the

¶44

Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners 1 and 2 (Accused Nos.2 and 3), they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent

¶45

sureties each for the like sum to

¶46

B.A. No.842 of 2020 6

¶47

the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶48

3. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners (Accused Nos.2 and 3) 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;

¶49

4. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners (Accused Nos.2 and 3) shall not leave India without permission of the Court;

¶50

5. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners (Accused Nos.2 and 3) shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected,

¶51

B.A. No.842 of 2020 7

¶52

of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶53

6. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners (Accused Nos.2 and 3) 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;

¶54

7. If any of the above conditions

¶55

are violated by the petitioners 1 and 2 (Accused Nos.2 and 3), the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though

¶56

the bail is granted by this Court.

¶57

The bail application of the 3^rd petitioner, who is the 1^st accused in this case, is cancelled.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN