Ajsar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5458 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.1282 OF 2021

     CRIME NO.799/2020 OF Valayam Police Station , Kozhikode


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

      1        AJSAR
               AGED 20 YEARS
               KUNIYIL HOUSE, KODIYURA PO,
               VANIMEL, VADAKARA
               KOZHIKODE PIN-673506

      2        MUHAMMED JUSAIR
               AGED 21 YEARS
               PUTHALATH HOUSE, KODIYURA ,
               VANIMEL P.O, PIN-673506

      3        SAYAD
               AGED 32 YEARS
               KOOLIPOYIL, KODIYOORA POST, VANIMEL
               PIN-673506

               BY ADV. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER

RESPONDENT:

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

               R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
               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.1282 OF 2021

                                2

                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------
                      B.A.No.1282 of 2021
                  -------------------------------
            Dated this the 15th day of February, 2021

                             O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.799 of

2020 of Valayam Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioners and others alleging

offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,

506(ii), 325 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.12.2020 at

01.30 pm, all the accused formed themselves into an

unlawful assembly to inflict injuries to the de facto

complainant. He was sitting in the shop by name "Finger

World" in Bhoomivathukkal Town. In furtherance of the

common object of the unlawaful assembly, the accused

restrained the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the

accused assaulted the de facto complainant. Bail Appl..No.1282 OF 2021

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. No

serious injuries sustained to de facto complainant. The

counsel submitted that the de facto complainant used to

trouble the mother of the first accused. The Mahal

Committee also intervened in this case as evident by

Annexure 2. The counsel submitted that a complaint was

filed before the police on 28.11.2020 for that incident.

The FIR was registered only subsequent to the

registration of this case. That incident shows the high

handed relationship of the de facto complainant with the

police. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are

ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them

bail.

5. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the de Bail Appl..No.1282 OF 2021

facto complainant sustained a lacerated wound. The

Public Prosecutor submits that if this Court is granting

bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. The Public

Prosecutor submitted that 2nd and 3rd petitioners are

involved in some other cases.

6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail

application can be allowed on the stringent conditions. I

don't want to make any observations about the merit of

the case. There is no serious injuries sustained by the de

facto complainant. Considering the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can

be allowed on stringent conditions:

7. 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 Bail Appl..No.1282 OF 2021

issued various salutary directions for minimizing the

number of inmates inside prisons.

8. 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.

9. 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 Bail Appl..No.1282 OF 2021

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 as and

when required. The petitioners shall co-

operate with the investigation and shall

not threaten or attempt to influence the

witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

4. The petitioners shall strictly abide

by the various guidelines issued by the

State Government and Central Bail Appl..No.1282 OF 2021

Government with respect to keeping of

social distancing in the wake of Covid 19

pandemic.

5. 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 SCS