Kerala High Court
Muneer 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.3490 OF 2021
CRIME NO.56/2021 OF Pandikad Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUNEER
AGED 45 YEARS
SON OF HAMZA, AYOTH HOUSE,
UDUMBATHUPADI, NEAR A.L.P. SCHOOL,
CHITTATHUPARA, PANTHALLUR AMSOM,
PULIKKAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
673637
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/SSTATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
676521
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. 3490/2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3490 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.56/2021 of
Pandikkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 354A(1)
(i), 354A(2), 354D (I)(i), 354 A(2), 354 D(I)(i), 354D(2) of IPC and
Sections 7 and 8 r/w 11 (iv) of the POCSO Act and 119(b) of the
Kerala Police Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused herein used to
send messages through mobile phone and in April 2020 he forcefully
took the minor girl towards Manjeri in a van. When the vehicle was
proceeding to Manjeri the accused kissed and pressed the breast of
the minor girl and it is also alleged that the petitioner touched the
vagina of the victim and thereby outraged the modesty of the minor
girl.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a false
case foisted against the petitioner. The alleged incident was in April
2020 and the complaint was filed only in April 2021. The counsel
submitted that the victim filed about 40 cases against different
persons and this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.3.2021 and
he is in custody from that date onwards. The Public Prosecutor
seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that the
petitioner sexually abused a minor girl.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was in custody from 17.3.2021
onwards. The allegation against the petitioner is that he kissed and
pressed the breast of the victim and also touched the vagina of the
victim in April 2020. Admittedly the case is registered in April 2021.
I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. It is a
case in which the prosecution mainly relying the oral evidence of the
victim. In such circumstances, the continued detention of the
petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
case. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner is in custody from
17.3.2021 onwards. Considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, I think 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand 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 any offence
similar to the offence alleged in this case.
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. 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/-+
