Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.2101 OF 2020 CRIME NO.38/2020 OF KALLADICODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONER/S: 1 SAVIN KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.SASIKUMAR, MUTUKURUSSI P.O., 2 SASIKUMAR, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.T.VELAYUDHAN, MUTHUKURUSSI P.O., 3 VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS W/O.SASIKUMAR, MUTHUKURUSSI P.O., BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
================== ================== Dated this the 24th day of August, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are accused in crime No. 38 of
2020 of Kalladikode Police Station, Palakkad District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 498 A of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, the 1 st petitioner married the defacto complainant on 21.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, there is matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant. The learned counsel also submitted that, the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, they are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though
opposed the Bail Application, submitted that, if this Court is granting bail, in the light of the fact that, it is a case arises from a matrimonial dispute, stringent conditions may be imposed.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, there is a matrimonial dispute pending in between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail can be allowed on stringent conditions.
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 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.
9. 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.
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:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, 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 officer concerned;
3. 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;
4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;
5. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
6. The petitioners 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.
If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. (Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE LU