Vipin Pereira @ Kuttani vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12273 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12273 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2021

Kerala High Court

Vipin Pereira @ Kuttani 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.3655 OF 2021

CRIME NO.363/2021 OF Kollam East Police Station , Kollam


PETITIONER/S:

           VIPIN PEREIRA @ KUTTANI
           AGED 33 YEARS
           PERUMPALLI THODIYIL VEEDU, TRA B- 38A
           THEKKEVILA CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE,
           KOLLAM
           691010

           BY ADVS.
           SRUTHY N. BHAT
           SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

RESPONDENT/S:

           STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
           OF KERALA
           682031

           R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OTHER PRESENT:

           SR.P.P.SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3655 of 2021

                                  ..2..




                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.3655 of 2021
                   -------------------------------
            Dated this the 07th day of May, 2021

                              ORDER

This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the

Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.363

of 2021 of Kollam East Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused

persons, due to their previous enmity, attacked the de facto

complainant on 07.04.2021. It is alleged that the de facto

complainant sustained very serious injuries. Hence, it is

alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner

was arrested on 11.04.2021.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from B.A.No.3655 of 2021

..3..

11.04.2021 onwards. The learned counsel also submitted that

the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition if this Court

grant bail to him. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

bail application and submitted that the petitioner is involved in

12 other criminal cases. The learned Public Prosecutor also

submitted that the petitioner had undergone preventive

detention under the KAAPA Act also. Therefore, the learned

Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner shall not be

released on bail at this stage.

5. It is true that the allegation against the

petitioner is very serious. It is also a fact that the petitioner is

involved in some other cases also. But simply because the

petitioner is involved in other cases, that is not a reason to

reject bail. This point is considered by the Apex Court in

Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P. &

Another (2012 (2) SCC 382). The petitioner is in custody from

11.04.2021 onwards. Since the petitioner is involved in other

criminal cases, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to

enter the Kollam East Police Station for a period of two months

or till the final report in the above case is filed. With such a

direction, this bail application can be allowed. B.A.No.3655 of 2021

..4..

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 1st 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 B.A.No.3655 of 2021

..5..

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 petitioner shall be released on bail

on his 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 B.A.No.3655 of 2021

..6..

Court or to any police officer.

3. The petitioner shall not leave India

without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

4. The petitioner shall not commit any