Kerala High Court
Sudheesh 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.3353 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1400/2020 OF Kuthiyathode Police Station ,
Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:
SUDHEESH
AGED 26 YEARS
KANDATHIL VEEDU
KUTHIATHODE PO
CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA
688533
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC
SHRI.NIKHIL DEV.P.
SMT.ANNS MARIYA NISLIN C.K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTHIATHODE
KUTHIATHODE POLICE STATION CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA 688534.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
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:
B.A.No.3353 of 2021
..2..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3353 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of May, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video
Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1400
of 2020 of Kuthiyathode Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 294(b), 506 and
332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also
under Sections 4(2)(i) and 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases
Ordinance, 2020.
3. The prosecution case is that the de facto
complainant, a Grade Sub Inspector in Kuthiyathode Police
Station and party were on duty on 13.12.2020 at 7.30 p .m. It
is alleged that they found five persons sitting on the road and
on seeing them, the de facto complainant asked them to go
B.A.No.3353 of 2021
..3..
from the place because of the pandemic situation. He also
noticed that they were not using mask and they were violating
COVID protocol. Then these five persons pushed the de facto
complainant and the other civil police officers. 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 the petitioner has not committed any
offence and one of the co-accused is already released on bail
as per the order dated 08.01.2021 in B.A.No.8902 of 2020.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. One of the
co-accused in the above case is already released on bail as per
order dated 08.1.2021 in B.A.No.8902 of 2020. In the light of
the above, I find no reason to deny bail to the petitioner also.
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 2 nd 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
B.A.No.3353 of 2021
..4..
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 opportunity of securing fair trial.
B.A.No.3353 of 2021
..5..
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 appear before the
Investigating Officer within three weeks from today and
shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. 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;
B.A.No.3353 of 2021
..6..
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the Court;
5. The Petitioner shall not commit any offence
similar to the offence alleged in this case.
6. 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;
7. 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
ds 07.05.2021
