Kerala High Court
Musthafa vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.9050 OF 2020
CRIME NO.226/CR/OCW-1/TVM/2015 OF CRIME BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
MUSTHAFA
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED
THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
POWERHOUSE WARD, AALIYADU VILLAGE
AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST.
FROM MANNARATH HOUSE, KEEZHMED DESOM
ERUMATHALA POST, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM (DIST.)
PIN-683112
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
SRI.V.S.MANSOOR
SMT.BINU K.B.
SMT.YADUKRISHNAN N.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031
PP-SMT.REKHA C. NAIR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9050 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.9050 of 2020
--------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.226/CR/OCW-
1/TVM/2015 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. The
petitioner and others were arrayed as accused in this case
alleging offences punishable under Sections 370(1)(2)(3),
370(A)(1)(2), 120B, 511 of 370(1)(2)(3) r/w. 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that based on the confession
statement given by one Arun, while undergoing custody in
Crime No.29 of 2015 of Cyber Crime Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, the present crime is registered. The gist
of the prosecution case is that the accused conspired together
to commit trafficking for prostitution and in furtherance of the
conspiracy, recruited ladies including minors from various
places offering them job and salary. It is the further case of the
prosecution that they have done so on various dates prior to
14.12.2015.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested in this case on 8.10.2020. The counsel
submitted that he is in custody from that date onwards. No
final report is filed in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C.
6. The Public Prosecutor conceded that the final report is
not filed and the petitioner is entitled bail. The Public
Prosecutor submitted the reasons for not filing the final report
in time. But that is not a ground to deny bail to a petitioner.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 8.10.2020
onwards. Now he is in custody for more than 90 days. Final
report is not filed in this case. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is entitled statutory bail. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the prosecution suspect that the petitioner will
again abscond if he is released on bail. But when the Law says
that the petitioner is entitled bail, this Court cannot deny bail
to the petitioner on that ground. When this Court verified
whether the passport of the petitioner is seized by the
Investigating Officer, the counsel for the petitioner submitted
that it is already seized. There can be a direction to the
petitioner not to leave India without permission from the
jurisdictional Court. Therefore, this bail application is 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One lakh 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. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10
a.m.till final report is filed.
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
cms
