Nived.S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12308 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12308 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2021

Kerala High Court

Nived.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.2911 OF 2021

 CRIME NO.47/2021 OF Perambra Police Station , Kozhikode


PETITIONER/S:

           NIVED.S
           AGED 21 YEARS
           ELIMBLACHERY HOUSE,
           MUTHUVANNACHA P.O, KUTTIYADI
           KOZHIKODE
           673508

           BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
           OF KERALA
           682031

     2     XXXXX
           AGED 18 YEARS
           XXXXXXX
           XXXXXXX

           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.2911/2021

                                      ..2..




                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------
                     B.A.No.2911of 2021
                     -------------------------------
              Dated this the 7th day of May, 2021


                              ORDER

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video

Conference.

2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.47/2021

of Perambra Police Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioner under the offences punishable under

Section 354, 354A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 12 r/w

11(i) and 8 r/w 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) Act.

3. The prosecution case is that in the month of

January, 2021, the petitioner hugged the defacto complainant,

who is a minor aged 17 years, on the road side behind the B.A.No.2911/2021

..3..

Higher Secondary School, Vadakkumbad. Thereafter, on

22.01.2021, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant

through phone by uttering obscene words. Hence, it is

alleged that the petitioner committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel submitted

that the petitioner is aged 21 years and the victim is aged 17

years. They were in love. Because of some misunderstanding,

this complaint is filed and the counsel submitted that even if

the entire allegations are accepted, the offence is not made

out. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

5. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail

Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The

petitioner and the victim are youngsters. According to the

petitioner, he was in love with the victim. But the victim is a

minor. The prosecution can prove the case only through oral

evidence. According to me, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not necessary. Considering the age of the

petitioner and considering other facts and circumstances, I B.A.No.2911/2021

..4..

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 B.A.No.2911/2021

..5..

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. 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 B.A.No.2911/2021

..6..

petitioner, he shall be released on bail

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;