Subalendranath Alias Shibu vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5355 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.295 OF 2021

      CRIME NO.2706/2020 OF Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam


PETITIONER:

               SUBALENDRANATH ALIAS SHIBU,
               AGED 37 YEARS
               MINI VILASOM ,THOTTAM MUKKU, MATHIRA P.O
               MANCODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA
               KOLLAM 691333


               BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

RESPONDENT:

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

               R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION        ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.295 of 2021                    2



                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                         B.A.No.295 of 2021
                    -------------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of February 2021

                              ORDER

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.2706 of 2020 of

Kadakkal Police Station. The above case is registered against

the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Sections 323,

294(b), 324, 506 and 354 of IPC. The learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 308 IPC

is also subsequently added.

3. The prosecution case is that on 28.12.2020 at 5.30 pm

the petitioner herein came to the defacto complainant's house

on a motor cycle. It is alleged that the petitioner attacked the

defacto complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of the

defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner

abused and threatened the defacto complainant. It is the

further case of the prosecution that the petitioner inflicted

injuries on the defacto complainant.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the

entire allegations are accepted the offence under section 308

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

under Section 354 of IPC is also not made out in the facts and

circumstances of the case. 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 the

serious injuries are sustained to the injured in this case. 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. The entire incident

happened in connection with a disputed tree lening towards the

house of the defatco complainant. I do not want to make any

observations about the merit of the case.

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,
           ska                                       JUDGE