Jain.V Pillai vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5354 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.436 OF 2021

   CRIME NO.1822/2020 OF Anchalummoodu Police Station , Kollam


PETITIONER:

               JAIN.V PILLAI
               AGED 32 YEARS
               CHAKKOLIL KIZHAKKATHIL, EVOOR SOUTH,
               KEERIKODU PO, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA
               PIN-690502

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
               SRI.S.SUNIL NARAYANAN

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               ANCHALUMMODU POLICE STATION, ANCHALUMMODU,
               KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA
               PIN-691015

               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.436 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 one of the accused in Crime No.1822

of 2020 of Anchalummodu Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner and others alleging

offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 294(b), 447,

451, 506, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and

the other accused mentally and physically harassed the

defacto complainant. It is also alleged that on 24.8.2018 at

midnight, petitioner trespassed into the residence of the

defacto complainant and assaulted the defacto

complainant, her parents and brother and inflicted injuries.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of

the accused is already released on bail as per order dated

15.12.2020 in BA.No.8208 of 2020. The counsel submitted

that the petitioner also may be released on bail. 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. But, 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, one of

the accused is already released on bail by this court as per

order dated 15.12.2020 in BA.No.8208 of 2020. The case

is based on a private complaint which was forwarded under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As far as the offence under Section

326 of IPC is concerned, the alleged incident happened on

24.8.2018 and the complaint was filed after about two

years. I do not want to make any observations about the

merit of the case.

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of

the case, and also considering the fact that one of the

accused is already released on bail, 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