Sabin vs State of Kerala

SABIN vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 27, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1811000

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1811000
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Oct 27, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./6768/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SABIN

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....vanitha police station. the above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under section 498a read with section 34 of the indian penal code (ipc).3. the prosecution case is that, the 1st petitioner married the de facto complainant on 27-10-2010. subsequently, it is alleged that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.5. the learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that, the allegation against the petitioners are matrimonial offences. the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this court grant them bail.6. the learned public prosecutor even though opposed the bail application, submitted that, if this court is granting bail stringent conditions may be imposed.7. after hearing both sides, i think this bailapplication can be allowed on stringent conditions. admittedly the allegation is matrimonial cruelty. 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. matrimonial relationship between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant is in existence. considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, i think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.8. moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spreadof 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, thebail 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.6768 OF 2020 CRIME NO.27/2020 OF MALAPPURAM VANITHA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 SABIN, AGED 35 YEARS, CHERIKALLINGAL HOUSE, KUTTAMANNA, KAVUNGAL, MALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505. 2 CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O BALAKRISHNAN, CHERIKALLINGAL HOUSE, KUTTAMANNA, KAVUNGAL, MALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
================== ================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2020

ORDER

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.27/2020 of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The prosecution case is that, the 1st petitioner married the de facto complainant on 27-10-2010. Subsequently, it is alleged that the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that, the allegation against the petitioners are matrimonial offences. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail.

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

7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail

application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly the allegation is matrimonial cruelty. 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. Matrimonial relationship between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant is in existence. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, I think this bail application 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

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties SABIN vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan