Subin Philip vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12886 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
      FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 4510 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2744/2020 OF DISTRICT &
                  SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
     Crime No.1251/2020 of Haripad Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:

          SUBIN PHILIP
          AGED 23 YEARS
          S/O.P.J.PHILIP, PEEDIKAYIL MARY VILLA, MUTTOM P.O.,
          PALLIPPAD, HARIPPADU.

          BY ADV K.R.SUNIL



RESPONDENT/S:

          STATE OF KERALA
          THROUGH THE S.I. OF POLICE, HARIPADU POLICE STATION,
          HARIPPADU, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
          OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.


OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI.E.C.BINEESH-PP



THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BA 4510/2021
                                         -2-




                                      ORDER

[Dated this the 11th day of June, 2021]

BA No.4510 of 2021

This is the second time the applicant is approaching this Court for

anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. His earlier application was

dismissed. The right of an accused to make successive application for grant

of bail cannot be disputed. But, at the same time, it can be entertained only

when there are sufficient grounds to show that there is a change of

circumstance which enables the applicant to approach the court again for

bail, as is held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar

v. Rajesh Ranjan, [2004 KHC 754 : AIR 2004 SC 1866].

2. In the instant case, I am not going into the merits of the case

because that has already been discussed and the prayer for anticipatory bail

was disallowed by this Court. Therefore, I find no reason to reconsider that.

But the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has brought about the

change of circumstance stating that the present pandemic situation has

created a havoc and in case the applicant is confined to Jail, there is every

possibility of his contacting Covid-19 and more over, he has no criminal BA 4510/2021

antecedents also. Therefore, custodial interrogation and confining him into

Jail may not be required, considering the present pandemic situation. The

Honourable Supreme Court has In Re: Contagion of Covid 19 Virus In

Prisons ... Petitioner(s), a suo motu petition taken as WPC No.1/2020

reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 376, observed that arrest should be the

last resort, particularly in cases which come under the purview of the decision

in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014(3) KHC 69 : 2014 (8) SCC 273].

The Honourable Apex Court has observed thus in the aforesaid suo motu

proceedings by stating that rapid proliferation of the virus among the inmates

of congested prisons is a matter of serious concern and therefore, only in

cases where it is absolutely essential for the person to be arrested, shall he

be arrested particularly in cases, which have been enumerated in the

decision in Arnesh Kumar.

3. In the instant case, the applicant has allegedly committed an

offence punishment under Section 406 IPC, which is punishable with

imprisonment of less than seven years. Therefore, I find that the decisions of

the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid suo motu proceedings as

also in Arnesh Kumar, squarely apply to the case in hand. Hence, without BA 4510/2021

interfering with the earlier decision of this Court regarding the rejection of the

anticipatory bail of the applicant, the investigating officer shall take the

applicant into custody, only if it is found to be absolutely essential,

considering the present pandemic situation.

The bail application is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg