Kerala High Court
Bijin Babu vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2021
B.A.No.8701 of 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.8701 OF 2020
CRIME NO.579/2019 OF Peechi Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONERS:
1 BIJIN BABU
AGED 30 YEARS
KADAMPATTUVILA HOUSE, ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM
691512
2 BABU
AGED 52 YEARS
KADAMPATTUVILA HOUSE,ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM-
691512
691512
3 ANNIE BABU
AGED 49 YEARS
KADAMPATTUVILA HOUSE,ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM
691512
BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MAYA.M.N., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8701 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.8701 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.579 of 2019 of
Peechi Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that the 1st accused and the de
facto complainant were friends. They met through social media
and it lead to an affair. Both of them decided to marry. It is
also alleged that the de facto complainant gave an amount of
Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner. Subsequently, the marriage was
not conducted. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor.
5.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if
the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Sections
406 and 420 read with 34 IPC is not made out. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions,
if this Court grant them bail.
6. The counsel submitted that the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners
are the father and mother of the 1 st petitioner and there is
absolutely no allegation against the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners. The
counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court grant them bail.
7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But
the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting
bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.
8. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. I do not want to make any
observation about the merit of the case. Whether the offence
under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC are made out in
the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be
investigated.
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
cms
