Kerala High Court
Sigith K 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.3482 OF 2021
CRIME NO.139/2021 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIGITH K S
AGED 24 YEARS
KALICHATHU HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O, THANNIYAM,
THRISSUR, KERALA- 680565
680565
BY ADVS.
SRI.JERIE RAMESH
SHRI.BENTO PAULSON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
2 SHO ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION
THANIKKAL KEERTHI NAGAR RD, KEERTHI NAGAR,
MAMANGALAM, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682026
682026
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. 3482/2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3482 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.139/2021 of
Elamakkara Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention to cheat the defacto
complainant Indus Motors, a company engaged in rent a car business
took 'Innova Crista' car bearing registration No. KL-7-CN-4930 on
rent from the company and handed over the vehicle to the other
accused and they removed the number plate of the car and the
second accused transfered the car to the fourth accused and the
fourth accused and seventh accused together removed the GPS and
Fast tag from the car and transferred the car to one Sajas. Hence, it
is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested on 20.3.2021 and he is in custody from that
date onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to
abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The counsel
submitted that the indefinite incarceration of the accused is not
necessary. According to the counsel even if the allegations are
accepted, the offence alleged is not made out. The counsel also
submitted that the other accused were released on bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 20.3.2021
onwards. Some of the accused in the above case were already
released on bail. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in
custody from 20.3.2021 onwards, 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/-+
