Allowed

Bijin Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021Bail Appl./8701/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused persons regarding an offence under Sections 406, 420, and 34 IPC. The Court allowed the application on stringent conditions, citing the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, along with the need for social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with conditions to appear for interrogation, execute a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, cooperate with investigation, not leave India, and follow social distancing norms.

Bijin Babu Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

B.A.No.8701 of 2020 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶6

Bail Appl..No.8701 OF 2020

¶7

CRIME NO.579/2019 OF Peechi Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 BIJIN BABU AGED 30 YEARS KADAMPATTUVILA HOUSE, ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM 691512

¶10

2 BABU AGED 52 YEARS KADAMPATTUVILA HOUSE,ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM691512 691512

¶11

3 ANNIE BABU AGED 49 YEARS KADAMPATTUVILA HOUSE,ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM 691512

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SMT.MAYA.M.N., PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.A.No.8701 of 2020 2

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶21

B.A.No.8701 of 2020

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶25

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶26

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.579 of 2019 of

¶27

Peechi Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC.

¶28

3.The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused and the de facto complainant were friends. They met through social media

¶29

and it lead to an affair. Both of them decided to marry. It is

¶30

also alleged that the de facto complainant gave an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner. Subsequently, the marriage was

¶31

not conducted. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

¶32

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public

¶33

B.A.No.8701 of 2020 3

¶34

Prosecutor.

¶35

5.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail.

¶36

The counsel submitted that the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the father and mother of the 1^st petitioner and there is absolutely no allegation against the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail.

¶37

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

¶38

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. Whether the offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC are made out in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated.

¶39

B.A.No.8701 of 2020 4

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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:

¶44

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶45

B.A.No.8701 of 2020 5

¶46

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

¶47

After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶48

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

¶49

like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶50

The petitioners shall appear before the 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.

¶51