Allowed

Aneesh Das v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2021Bail Appl./16/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court allowed bail for two petitioners accused of domestic violence offences. The Court imposed stringent conditions, including regular interrogation, execution of a bond, social distancing norms due to the pandemic, and prohibitions on leaving India or committing similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with stringent conditions including appearance within ten days, execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with sureties, social distancing compliance, and prohibition on leaving India.

Aneesh Das Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.16 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.3770/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

1 ANEESH DAS AGED 33 YEARS MUKKADAYIL DASANS VILLA, MYLOM P.O., MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. PIN-691560

¶9

2 KUNJUMOL DAS AGED 58 YEARS MUKKADAYIL DASANS VILLA, MYLOM P.O., MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. 691560

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No.16 of 2021 2

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

B.A.No.16 of 2021

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of February 2021

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶23

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶24

Petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.3770 of

¶25

2020 of Kottarakara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 188 read with 34 IPC and Sections 31(1) and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act, 2005).

¶26

The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioners violated the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under provisions of the Act, 2005.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public

¶28

B.A.No.16 of 2021 3

¶29

Prosecutor.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct and true. The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the 1^st petitioner. The counsel submitted that there is some matrimonial disputes between the 1^st petitioner and the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this court grant bail.

¶31

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

¶32

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, matrimonial offences are alleged against the petitioners. Some matrimonial disputes are pending between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of the case.

¶33

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the

¶34

B.A.No.16 of 2021 4

¶35

case, I think this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

¶41

B.A.No.16 of 2021 5

¶42

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶43

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶44

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

¶45

After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶46

Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they 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.

¶47

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶48

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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

B.A.No.16 of 2021 6

¶50