Allowed

Abhilash, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2020Bail Appl./900/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a bail application filed by four accused persons in a case involving right, hurt, mischief, and assault. The court allowed bail for three petitioners on stringent conditions, considering the nature of allegations and pandemic guidelines, while dismissing the application for the second petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for petitioners 1, 3 and 4 on stringent conditions including surrender for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, non-arrival abroad, and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.

Abhilash, 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.900 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2892/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CRIME NO.993/2019 OF Vattappara Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ABHILASH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O ANILKUMAR, KANNAN BHAVAN, THOTTARIKATHU VEEDU, PERUMKOOR, KONCHIRA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

2 PRADEEP KUMAR R, AGED 39 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR, POOVAPALLY VEEDU, PERUMKOOR, KONCHIRA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3 SARATH CHANDRAN R,AGED 26 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SYAM VIHAR, VETTINADU, VATTAPPARA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 SHIBU.F, AGED 45 YEARS S/O FRANCIS, POORUTTATHY, EDAKKUMTHALA, THADATHARIKATTU VEEDU, PERUMKOOR, KONCHIRA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, (CRIME NO 993/2019 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT). 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO 993/2019 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 046) R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:SRI.C.K.SURESH, SR.GP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.No. 900 OF 2020 2

¶16

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶17

B.A.No.900 of 2020

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2020

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶21

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos. 2, 5, 1 and 4 respectively

¶23

in Crime No. 993 of 2019 of Vattappara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others

¶24

alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 323, 324, 354, 427 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case is that on 24.11.2019, at 8.30

¶26

p.m., the petitioners and the other accused formed themselves

¶27

into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons

¶28

B.A.No. 900 OF 2020 3

¶29

committed rioting and in furtherance of the common object, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his mother near Perumkoor junction in Vembayam Village and 1^st accused abused the defacto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to him. When the mother of the defacto complainant intervened 1^st accused used criminal force against her intending to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, the petitioners and the other accused voluntarily caused hurt to one Nithin sha, the friend of the defacto complainant, who intervened in the attack. The petitioners and the other accused committed the above acts with the knowledge that if they caused the death of Nithin sha, the friend of the defacto complainant, they would be guilty of murder.

¶30

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

¶31

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the 5^th accused is already arrested and therefore, he is not pressing the Bail Application as far as the 2^nd petitioner who is the 5^th accused in this case. The counsel for the petitioners

¶32

B.A.No. 900 OF 2020 4

¶33

submitted that there is no serious allegations against petitioners 1,3 and 4. The allegations even as per the F.I.statement is that they assaulted the injured using hands.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the bail application submitted that, if this Court is granting bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶35

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The above case is registered in 2019. This Bail application is filed on 04.02.2020. Even now, petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were not arrested. Probably,

¶36

the police may be waiting for the disposal of this Bail Application. Admittedly, there is no serious allegations against petitioner Nos.1,3 and 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶37

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

¶38

Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo

¶39

B.A.No. 900 OF 2020 5

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed as far as petitioners 1,3 and 4 are concerned with the following directions:

¶43

The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall appear

¶44

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

¶45

B.A.No. 900 OF 2020 6

¶46

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, 1,3 and 4, 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

¶47

officer concerned.

¶48

The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall appear

¶49

before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶50

Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶51

B.A.No. 900 OF 2020 7

¶52

Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not commit

¶53

an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶54

The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 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.

¶55

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners 1, 3 and 4, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶56

The bail application of the second petitioner is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶59

al/-+

Abhilash, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash, 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

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahad.C Vs the State of Kerala

Gireesh, Vs State of Kerala

Binu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh S.R. Vs State of Kerala

V.Gopinath Vs State of Kerala