Arun S S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12290 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12290 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2021

Kerala High Court

Arun S S 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.3620 OF 2021

      CRIME NO.807/2020 OF Pulpally Police Station , Wayanad


PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

                ARUN S S
                AGED 32 YEARS
                MS HOUSE, GHSS JUNCTION,
                BHARATHANOOR POST, PANGODE, NEDUMANGAD,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                PIN - 695609

                BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

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.3620 OF 2021

                                    2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                     B.A.No.3620 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. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.807 of

2020 of Pulpally Police Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that during the period

from 30.04.2018 to 20.08.2018, the petitioner dishonestly induced

the de facto complainant to deliver an amount of Rs.7 lakh

promising that he will arrange Visa to the de facto complainant for

a job at Helsingi in Finland. Hence, it is alleged that the accused

committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that he filed a bail application under Section

438 Cr.P.C. before this Court earlier and this Court dismissed the Bail Appl..No.3620 OF 2021

same as per Annexure A7 order directing the petitioner to

surrender before the court concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner

surrendered on 21.04.2021. The learned counsel submitted that

the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition if this Court grant

him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and submitted that the petitioner committed serious

offence.

5. The admitted prosecution case is that huge

amount is given by the de facto complainant to the petitioner for

getting a Visa for the job of a Nurse at Helsingi in Finland. It is

not clear whether the payment of money by the de facto

complainant to the petitioner is legal and whether such procedure

is followed for getting Visa. The alleged payment was in the year

2018 and the crime was registered in the year 2020. I do not

want to make any observation about the merits of the case. The

petitioner surrendered before the Court concerned as directed by

this Court in Annexure A7 order. He is in judicial custody from

21.04.2021 onwards. 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 Bail Appl..No.3620 OF 2021

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 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 Bail Appl..No.3620 OF 2021

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. The petitioner shall be released on bail on

his 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.