Kerala High Court
Subramanian 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.3471 OF 2021
CRIME NO.410/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:
1 SUBRAMANIAN,AGED 57 YEARS
S/O KARAPPAN, MEKKATUKATIL HOUSE,
KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE-680659
2 PRADEEP,AGED 30 YEARS
S/O KARAPPAN, MEKKATUKATIL HOUSE,
KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE-680659
BY ADVS.
SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE
SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA-682031
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:
Bail Appl..No.3471 OF 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3471 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 petitioners are the accused in Crime No.410/21 of
Irinjalakkuda Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324
and 308 read with 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.04.2021 at 9.30 pm, the
petitioners wrongfully confined the son of the defacto complainant
and the 1st accused attacked him using a sword. The defacto
complainant sustained injuries on the back of his body and therefore
the petitioners committed the offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were arrested on 20.04.2021. The counsel submitted that
the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor
seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that the injured
sustained serious injuries and he is still in hospital.
5. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are
very serious. The injured sustained very serious injuries. But the
only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is the offence
under Section 308 IPC. Whether the offence under Section 308 IPC is
made out or not is a matter to be investigated by the investigating
officer. I do not want to make any observation on the merit of the
case. But considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from
20.04.2021, I think that the petitioners can be released on bail. There
can be a direction to the petitioners not to enter the jurisdiction of
Irinjalakkuda Police Station for a period of two months or till the final
report is filed in the case, whichever is earlier.
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 him 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. The petitioners shall not enter the
jurisdictional limit of Irinjalakkuda Police Station
for a period of two months or till final report in the
above case if filed, whichever is earlier.
7. 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
sd
