Kerala High Court
Amal P.S. @Unni 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.3480 OF 2021
CRIME NO.42/2021 OF Edavanna Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AMAL P.S. @UNNI
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF SUKUMARAN, PANNIKKODAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL
HOUSE,
PULIYATTAKUNNU, KARAKKUNNU,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
676123
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
EDAVANNA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
676541
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. 3480/2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3480 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.42/2021 of
Edavanna Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 452, 354A(I)
(i), 354B, 511 of 376 IPC and Section 10 read with 9(c) of POCSO
Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 15.3.2021, at about 12.30
noon, the accused herein criminally trespassed into the residential
house of the victim aged 17 years and took her to the bed room and
tried to outrage her modesty. It is also alleged that the accused
forcefully lifted the Tshirt worn by the victim and caught on her
breast and thereby outraged the modesty of the girl.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a school teacher and he has not committed any offence.
The counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not
correct and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
him bail. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody
from 17.3.2021 onwards. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
5. After hearing both sides I think this bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner is in custody from
17.3.2021 onwards. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner has got a specific case
that he has been falsely implicated in the crime because of malafide
motives. According to him, the family of the victim borrowed money
from the petitioner and when the same was not returned, there
occurred some wordy quarrel and it is in relation to that animosity
the case is filed. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of
the case. The continued detention of the petitioner may not be
necessary because the prosecution is mainly relying the oral evidence
of the victim. 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/-+
