Kerala High Court
Sunilkumar.C.V. @ Kurumachan 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.2883 OF 2021
CRIME NO.109/2021 OF Nedumudi Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:
SUNILKUMAR.C.V. @ KURUMACHAN
AGED 48 YEARS
SATHEESH BHAVAN, KAINAKARY EAST.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA
688501
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR
SHRI.RESSIL LONAN
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
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.2883/2021
..2..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2883 of 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.109/2021
of Nedumudy Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 451, 354A and 354 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused reached
the house of the defacto complainant with the intention to
outrage her modesty on the promise to get back the money
due in respect of the materials purchased for the construction
of the house of the defacto complainant. Even though the
B.A.No.2883/2021
..3..
amount was paid, the petitioner caught hold of the chest of
the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the offence
was committed by the petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is more amount due to the petitioner and
the petitioner insisted for payment of the amount, the defacto
complainant paid only an amount of Rs.4,500/-. Since the
petitioner insisted for the balance amount, a false case was
filed. The counsel submitted that the offence under Section
354 IPC is not made out. The Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail applicatoin.
5. After hearing both sides, I think that this Bail
Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true
that the allegation is very serious. But the prosecution can
prove the case only through oral evidence. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petition can be
allowed on stringent conditions.
B.A.No.2883/2021
..4..
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.
B.A.No.2883/2021
..5..
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
petitioner, he shall be released on bail
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
B.A.No.2883/2021
..6..
(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;
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
B.A.No.2883/2021
..7..
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
kkj
