Kerala High Court
Ajimon vs State Of Kerala on 7 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1943
Bail Appl..No.3532 OF 2021
CRIME NO.171/2021 OF Parippally Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
1 AJIMON
AGED 33 YEARS
KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, CHIRAKKARA
THAZHAM P.O. KALLUVATHUKKAL 691578
691578
2 SHIBU
AGED 45 YEARS
KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, CHIRAKKARA
THAZHAM P.O. KALLUVATHUKKAL 691578
691578
3 ANANDHU .A
AGED 27 YEARS
SREELAYAM, CHIRAKKARA
THAZHAM P.O. KALLUVATHUKKAL 691578
691578
4 MANU
AGED 37 YEARS
KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, CHIRAKKARA
THAZHAM P.O. KALLUVATHUKKAL 691578
691578
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
P.P.SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. .3532 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3532 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.171/2021 of
Parippally Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 341,
447, 324 and 354 read with 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 31.03.2021 at 8.30 pm, the
accused with intention to cause hurt to the defacto complainant and
his relatives hit on the face of the defacto complainant with a spade
and when the defacto complainant covered his face, the accused
Nos.1 to 4 caught hold of him and stabbed him on his back and
abdomen and hit on the forehead and when the defacto complainant's
wife and children interfered, the accused caused hurt to them also.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only
non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section
354 IPC. The counsel submitted that even if the prosecution case is
accepted, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. The
counsel submitted that the petitioners were ready to abide any
condition, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think that the bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners and the
defacto complainant are close relatives. The only non-bailable
offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 IPC.
Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC made or not is a matter
to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want any
observation on the merit of the case. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think that this bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions.
6. Moreover, the 2nd wave of COVID-19 is spreading in the
country and the citizens are facing serious difficulties. In the state of
Kerala, the 2nd wave of the pandemic is creating lot of problems and
even the day-to-day life of the citizens are affected. Everyday, about
25,000 people are tested positive with COVID-19. In such
circumstances, this Court has to consider this fact also while
considering bail applications. The life is more important than
anything. Therefore, I am considering this bail application based on
the above pandemic situation.
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 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of
inmates inside prisons. These happened during the 1 st wave of
COVID-19 season.
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 three weeks from today
and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall
be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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. The petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the Court;
5. The petitioners shall not commit any
offence similar to the offence alleged in this case.
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
sd
