Kerala High Court
Vijeesh 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.3484 OF 2021
CRIME NO.114/2021 OF Kollengode Police Station , Palakkad
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 VIJEESH
AGED 24 YEARS
KALLAMPARAMBU HOUSE, OZHIVUPARA, PALLASSANA PO,
PALAKKAD-678505
2 VISHNU
AGED 24 YEARS
VISHNU, SON OF HARIDAS, KUNNUKALAM HOUSE,
OZHIVUPARA, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD -678505
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION
SHO, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, KOLLENGODE ,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678503
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. 3484/2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3484 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.114/2021 of
Kollengode Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 506(ii) r/w
Section 34 IPC and Section 7 r/w Section 27(2) of the Arms Act.
Subsequently the offence under Section 308 is also added.
3. The prosecution case is that on 18.4.2021 at 9.40 p.m., the
accused due to the prior enmity armed with deadly weapons like
sword, attacked the defacto complainant. The petitioners were
arrested on 20.4.2021 and they are in judicial custody from that date
onwards.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are in custody from 20.4.2021 onwards and they are ready
to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The counsel
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail
application merely for the reason that the accused Nos.1 and 4
involved in another case. The counsel submitted that they are on bail
in the other case as evident by Annexure-3 order. The counsel
submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if
this Court grant them bail.
5. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners are in custody
from 20.4.2021 onwards. The offence under Section 308 IPC is
added subsequently and originally only the offence under Arms Act
was there. Whether there was notification as per the Arms Act for
registering the case is not clear from the submission of the parties. I
don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody from
20.4.2021 onwards, 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit any offence
similar to the offence alleged in this case.
5. 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.
6. 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
al/-+
