Kerala High Court
Vinod 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.3604 OF 2021
CRIME NO.686/2021 OF Attingal Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-
1 VINOD
AGED 27 YEARS
VAVARAVILA VEEDU, NEAR KANJIRAMKONAM TEMPLE,
CHITTATTINKARA DESAM,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN - 695101
2 JISHNU
AGED 24 YEARS
JITHU NIVAS, KADUVAYIL,CHITTATTINKARA DESAM,
KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE
PIN - 695101
3 AJEESH
AGED 24 YEARS
CHARUVILA VEEDU, NEAR MULLASSERI DURGA DEVI TEMPLE,
MATHIYODU, KADUVAYIL, CHITTATTINKARA,
ATTINGAL, PIN - 695101
BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT :-
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM - 682031
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:
Bail Appl..No.3604 OF 2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3604 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 686 of
2021 of Attingal Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly on 24.04.2021 and attacked
the de facto complainant using dangerous weapons. The
petitioners were arrested on 24.04.2021 and they are in judicial
custody. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the
offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the
Bail Appl..No.3604 OF 2021
petitioners submitted that the investigation of the case is almost
over. The petitioners are in custody from 24.04.2021 onwards. The
learned counsel further submitted that the offence under the Arms
Act is not maintainable because there is no notification as per the
Arms Act. It is also submitted that no serious injuries are sustained
to the victim and the offence under Section 308 IPC is also not
made out. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think the bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners are in
custody from 24.04.2021 onwards. Whether the offences alleged
against the petitioners are made out or not is a matter to be
investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make
any observation about the merits of the case. 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
Bail Appl..No.3604 OF 2021
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 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:
Bail Appl..No.3604 OF 2021
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on
their 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. 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. 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
Bail Appl..No.3604 OF 2021
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
SMA
