Kerala High Court
Remaney vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942
Bail Appl..No.1803 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2399/2020 OF Anchal Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
REMANEY
AGED 60 YEARS
REMALAYAM,
PAMPUPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT
685551
BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT
691306
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MAYA.M.N., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1803/2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1803 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th 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 third accused in Crime No.2399 of 2020
of Anchal Police Station, Kollam. Originally the petitioner and
two others filed a bail application as B.A. No.5760/2020. At
that time, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner
herein is not an accused. Therefore, the other accused were
released on bail. Now the petitioner submitted that she is
subsequently added as an accused. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 294 (b), 506, 323, 324, 498A read with 34
IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the
other accused mentally and physically harassed the defacto
complainant.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is
no serious allegations against the petitioner. The offences
alleged are matrimonial offences. The counsel submitted that
the petitioner is the mother in-law of the defacto complainant.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions if this Court grant her bail.
7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The
Public Prosecutor submitted that based on a video
subsequently produced, the petitioner is implicated as an
additional accused.
8. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the first
and second accused were already released on bail as per order
dated on 22.9.2020 in B.A. No. 5760/2020. The offences
alleged against the petitioner and others are matrimonial
offences. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto
complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner is implicated as an
accused subsequently.
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, she
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 her 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 any offence
similar to the offence of which she is accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which she
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
al/-
