Kerala High Court
Jino. K.C 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.1316 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2/2021 OF Alakode Police Station , Kannur
PETITIONER/S:
JINO. K.C
AGED 36 YEARS
KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PERUNILAM,
ARANGAM BYPASS ROAD, ALAKKODE P.O,
ALAKKODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM,
TALIPARAMPBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670571
670571
BY ADV. SRI.VINU SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
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.1316 OF 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1316 of 2021
--------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video
Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2 of 2021 of
Alakode Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Secs.354(A)(1)(i), 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC. The offence under
Secs. 8 r/w7 and 6 r/w 5(l) of the POCSO Act is also alleged.
3. The prosecution case is that while the defacto
complainant was studying in 9th standard , the petitioner
herein had kidnapped the victim to his house at Oolimala in
Vellad amsom on 17.12.2017 and on 22.12.2017 and
committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The
petitioner was arrested on 6.1.2021.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 5.1.2021 onwards. The counsel
also submitted that the alleged incident happened in 2017.
The complaint was filed only on 6.1.2021. The counsel
submitted that, that itself shows that the allegation against
the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court
grants him 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. The
petitioner is in custody from 5.1.2021 onwards. The alleged
incident happened in 2017. The first information statement
is recorded on 6.1.2021. I don't want to make any
observation about the merit of the case. These are matters
to be investigated by the investigating officer. But
considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I
think this petition can be allowed, on stringent conditions.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays at 10
a.m., till final report is filed in the above
crime.
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
SKS
