Kerala High Court
Aneesh Das 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.16 OF 2021
CRIME NO.3770/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER:
1 ANEESH DAS
AGED 33 YEARS
MUKKADAYIL DASANS VILLA, MYLOM P.O.,
MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.
PIN-691560
2 KUNJUMOL DAS
AGED 58 YEARS
MUKKADAYIL DASANS VILLA, MYLOM P.O.,
MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.
691560
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
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:
B.A.No.16 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.16 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. Petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.3770 of
2020 of Kottarakara Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable
under Sections 498(A) and 188 read with 34 IPC and Sections
31(1) and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act, 2005).
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners mentally and
physically harassed the defacto complainant. It is further
alleged that the petitioners violated the orders passed by the
learned Magistrate under provisions of the Act, 2005.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations against the petitioners are not correct and true. The
1st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and 2 nd
petitioner is the mother of the 1 st petitioner. The counsel
submitted that there is some matrimonial disputes between the
1st petitioner and the defacto complainant. The counsel
submitted that the petitioners are 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, matrimonial
offences are alleged against the petitioners. Some matrimonial
disputes are pending between the 1st petitioner and the de
facto 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they
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 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
7. 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
ska
