Gokul Krishnan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12310 Ker

         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.3351 OF 2021

   CRIME NO.207/2021 OF MALAYALAPUZHA POLICE STATION ,
                      Pathanamthitta


PETITIONER/S:

     1     GOKUL KRISHNAN
           1. GOKUL KRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF
           UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, THADATHIL PUTHANVEED,
           CHEENKALTHADAM P.O, PATHISSERI,
           MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
           DISTRICT
           689671

     2     YEDHU KRISHNAN
           2. YEDHU KRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS SON OF SAJI
           KUMAR, THADATHIL PUTHANVEED, CHEENKALTHADAM,
           PATHISSERI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
           689671

     3     ABHIJITH
           3. ABHIJITH, AGED 22 YEARS, SON OF
           GOPALAKRISHNAN NIAR, KAIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
           MOKKOOTTUMKAL, MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
           689664

     4     AJITH KUMAR
           4. AJITH KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF
           GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
           MOKKOOTTUMKAL, MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
           689664

     5     SIBY DAVID
           SIBY DAVID, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF DAVID T.
           CHACKO, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHEENGALTHADAM P.O,
           MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
           DISTRICT
           689671
 B.A.No.3351 of 2021

                             ..2..




              BY ADVS.
              SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
              SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU




RESPONDENT/S:

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

              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.3351 of 2021

                               ..3..




                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                     B.A.No.3351 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 petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.207 of 2021 of Malayalapuzha Police Station. The above

case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 427

and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

3. The prosecution case is that on 18.04.2021,

at about 5.00 p.m., while the de facto complainant was

standing in the kitchen of her house, she felt that some

persons are walking towards her house. She noticed that 8

persons in four bikes carrying dangerous weapons are there

in front of her house. It is alleged that the accused B.A.No.3351 of 2021

..4..

trespassed into the house and used filthy language. Hence,

it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for

the petitioners submitted that a case is registered against

the son of the de facto complainant in which the first

petitioner sustained serious injuries. Annexure 2 is the FIR

in that case. The de facto complainant and her son want to

settle that case, which was refused by the first petitioner.

Hence, the present false case is registered against the

petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the only

non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is the

offence under Section 452 IPC. The petitioners are ready to

abide by any condition if this Court grant bail to them. The

learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail

application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only

non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is the

offence under Section 452 IPC. The petitioners alleged that

it is a false case foisted against them because the first B.A.No.3351 of 2021

..5..

petitioner was not ready to compromise Crime No.439 of

2021 of Pathanamthitta Police Station which was registered

against the son of the de facto complainant. I do not want

to make any observation about the merits of the case.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case

and also considering the fact that the only non-bailable

offence alleged is the offence under Section 452 IPC, 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 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 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 B.A.No.3351 of 2021

..6..

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:

B.A.No.3351 of 2021

..7..

1. Petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall

be released on bail on their executing a bond for a

sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum

to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

3. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any police officer;

4. Petitioners shall not leave India without

permission of the Court;

5. Petitioners shall not commit any offence B.A.No.3351 of 2021

..8..

similar to the offence alleged in this case.

6. 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;

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 ds 07.05.2021