Kerala High Court
Ajmal 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.3640 OF 2021
CRIME NO.139/2021 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
AJMAL
AGED 26 YEARS
AMBALATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, MLA ROAD, VADANAPPILLY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.
680569
BY ADV. SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
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. 3640 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3640 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. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in crime No.139/2021.
The offences alleged against the petitioner and others are Secs. 406
and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 13.03.2021
the 1st accused approached the defacto complainant, who is the
Operation Manager of Indus Motors, for the purposes of taking a car
on rent and on the basis of the agreement with the Indus Motors, the
1st accused had given an amount of Rs.9,632/- to the company
account. Accordingly, the agreement was entered between the 1st
accused and the company to rent a 'Toyota Innova Crysta' car. It is
alleged that the 1st accused and another person came to the
company yard office near Lulu Mall at Edappally and took the vehicle
without permission of the defacto complainant. Further case of the
prosecution is that the 1st accused handed over the vehicle to the
2nd accused and they removed the number plate of the vehicle and
thereafter transferred the vehicle to the 4 th accused. The 4th and 7th
accused together removed the GPS and Fastag and transferred the
vehicle to one Shajas and thereby cheated Indus Motors Company
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in
custody from 20.3.2021 onwards. The counsel submitted that the
offences under Secs. 406 and 420 IPC are not made out. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this
Court grant him bail. The counsel also submitted that the co-accused
is already released on bail by this Court as per order dated 4.5.2021
in BA No.3045/2021. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. I see no reason to deny bail to the
petitioner in the light of the fact that the co-accused is already
released on bail.
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
SKS
