Kerala High Court
Manoj Kallingal vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021
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.952 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2297/2020 OF Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER:
MANOJ KALLINGAL
AGED 40 YEARS
S.O LATE SANKUNNI, KALLINGAL HOUSE,
PANCHAVADI DESOM, EDAKKAZHIYUR P.O,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR
PIN-680516
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM-682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
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.952 OF 2021 2
ORDER
Dated this the 15th day of February 2021
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video
Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2297 of 2020
of Chavakkad Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 447, 324, 326, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 21.12.2020 at 4.00
pm, the petitioner trespassed into the residential premises
of the defacto complainant and attacked her with an iron
rod and iron block. It is also alleged that the petitioner
uttered obscene words to the wife and daughter of the
defacto complainant.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
father and mother of the petitioner died long back. The
marriage of the petitioner was scheduled on 24.1.2021.
The defacto complainant is a neighbour and a close relative
of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that in connection
with the marriage, the petitioner and the others were
trying to clear the pathway leading to the house. There was
some property dispute between the petitioner and with the
family of the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted
that in connection with the same a small incident
happened. The counsel submitted that the petitioner
approached the Sessions court for bail under Section 438
of Cr.P.C and as per Annexure 2, there is an order not to
arrest the petitioner till the marriage is over. Now the
marriage is also over. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this court
grant bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
injured sustained a fracture on nasal bone. The Public
Prosecutor 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, there is
a property dispute between the family of the petitioner and
the defacto complainant. The incident happened when the
petitioner was trying to clear the pathway leading to the
house of the petitioner in connection with his marriage.
Probably, it happened in a spur of moment.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, I think this bail application is 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 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.
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 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
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. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
6. 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.
7. 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
ska
