Baijuraj vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5351 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

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

                       Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

  CRIME NO.25/2021 OF PANTHEERANKAVU POLICE STATION , Kozhikode


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

               BAIJURAJ
               AGED 45 YEARS
               MADATTMETHAL HOUSE, PUTHOORMADAM,
               PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE
               PIN - 673019

               BY ADV. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT:

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

      ADDL.    M/S ANUJA.A.K
      2        AGED 35 YEARS, W/O DEEPAK,
               'ANUPAMA' HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU (P.O)
               PUTHOORMADOM, KOZHIKODE,
               NOW RESIDING AT PEECHANARI HOUSE
               FAROOK(P.O), NEAR SUBRAHMMANIA TEMPLE,
               CHERUVANNUR, PIN 673632.
               (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)

               R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
               R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
               SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

                                   2


                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
                       B.A.No.1230 of 2021
                   -------------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of February, 2021


                             O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.25 of 2021

of Pantheerankavu Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506, 341, 323,

354A of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.01.2021 at

about 5.30pm, the accused trespassed into the Homeo

clinic of the de facto complainant and abused her with

obscene words, threatened to cause bodily harm and

kicked on her. It is also alleged that the accused

wrongfully restrained and caught hold of her breast

intending to outrage her modesty.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The de facto complainant appeared through

Adv. Deepa.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the only non bailable offence alleged against the

petitioner is under Section 452 of the IPC. The counsel

submitted that the other offences are all bailable

offences. The counsel submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the offence under Section 452

of the IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that

the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this

Court grant him bail.

6. The counsel for the de facto complainant

opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that

the de facto complainant is a lady and she was attacked

by the petitioner. There are serious allegations against

the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that, this bail

application may be dismissed.

Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that if

this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be

imposed.

8. After hearing both sides, I think this bail

application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The

only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is

under Section 452 of the IPC. It is true that allegations

against the petitioner are very serious. But, considering

the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail

application can be allowed on stringent conditions:

9. 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 Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

the number of inmates inside prisons.

10. 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.

11. 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 petitioner shall appear

before the Investigating Officer within

ten days from today and shall undergo

interrogation.

Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

2. After interrogation, if the

Investigating Officer propose to arrest

the petitioner, he 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.

3. The petitioner shall appear before

the Investigating Officer as and when

required. The petitioner shall co-operate

with the investigation and shall not

threaten or attempt to influence the

witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

4. The petitioner shall strictly abide

by the various guidelines issued by the

State Government and Central

Government with respect to keeping of Bail Appl..No.1230 OF 2021

social distancing in the wake of Covid 19

pandemic.

5. If any of the above conditions are

violated by the petitioner, 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 SCS