Allowed

Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021Bail Appl./9050/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed the bail application of an accused arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act related to trafficking allegations. The court held that statutory bail is mandated after 90 days of custody without a final report, overriding concerns about absconding, and granted bail with stringent conditions including periodic appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties to satisfaction of jurisdictional Court along with stringent conditions.

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.9050 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.226/CR/OCW-1/TVM/2015 OF CRIME BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MUSTHAFA AGED 40 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POWERHOUSE WARD, AALIYADU VILLAGE AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. FROM MANNARATH HOUSE, KEEZHMED DESOM ERUMATHALA POST, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM (DIST.) PIN-683112

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.V.S.MANSOOR SMT.BINU K.B. SMT.YADUKRISHNAN N.

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

PP-SMT.REKHA C. NAIR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.9050 of 2020 2

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶16

B.A.No.9050 of 2020

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2021

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.226/CR/OCW1/TVM/2015 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner and others were arrayed as accused in this case alleging offences punishable under Sections 370(1)(2)(3), 370(A)(1)(2), 120B, 511 of 370(1)(2)(3) r/w. 34 IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case is that based on the confession statement given by one Arun, while undergoing custody in Crime No.29 of 2015 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, the present crime is registered. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused conspired together to commit trafficking for prostitution and in furtherance of the conspiracy, recruited ladies including minors from various

¶22

B.A.No.9050 of 2020 3

¶23

places offering them job and salary. It is the further case of the prosecution that they have done so on various dates prior to 14.12.2015.

¶24

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

¶25

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 8.10.2020. The counsel submitted that he is in custody from that date onwards. No final report is filed in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C.

¶26

The Public Prosecutor conceded that the final report is not filed and the petitioner is entitled bail. The Public Prosecutor submitted the reasons for not filing the final report in time. But that is not a ground to deny bail to a petitioner.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 8.10.2020 onwards. Now he is in custody for more than 90 days. Final report is not filed in this case. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled statutory bail. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution suspect that the petitioner will

¶28

B.A.No.9050 of 2020 4

¶29

again abscond if he is released on bail. But when the Law says that the petitioner is entitled bail, this Court cannot deny bail to the petitioner on that ground. When this Court verified whether the passport of the petitioner is seized by the Investigating Officer, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is already seized. There can be a direction to the petitioner not to leave India without permission from the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

B.A.No.9050 of 2020 5

¶33

(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.

¶34

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:

¶35

Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

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

¶37

B.A.No.9050 of 2020 6

¶38

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.

¶39

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶40

Petitioner shall not commit an offence

¶41

similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶42

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.

¶43