Kerala High Court
Rajesh Kumar 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.3606 OF 2021
CRIME NO.578/2021 OF Nedumangad Police Station ,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAJESH KUMAR
AGED 33 YEARS
RENTED HOUSE AT CHENCHERIKONATHU VEEDU, PALLIVILA,
VATTAPPARA P.O, FROM ROOPU NIVAS, PANTHUKALATHIL,
CHERIYAKONNI, ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695028
2 SUMESH
AGED 38 YEARS
LEKSHAM VEEDU, KARUVILA, KONDUNGANOOR,
VATTIYOORKAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695013
BY ADV. SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
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. 3606 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3606 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. The petitioners are the accused in crime No. 578/2021 of
Nedumangad Police Station. They are the accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the
above case. Above case is registered against the petitioners alleging
offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 324, 506,
447, 452, 326 and 307 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 26.02.2021 at about 2 pm,
the accused in prosecution of their common object formed themselves
into an unlawful assembly committed riot with deadly weapons. It is
also alleged that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of
the defacto complainant and assaulted him. The petitioners are
arrested on 10.3.2021.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are 3rd and 4th accused and there is no serious overtact
attributed to the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the
petitioners are in custody from 10.3.2021 onwards. The counsel
submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if
this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor conceded that no criminal
antecedents reported against the petitioners.
5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that the allegations
against the petitioners are very serious. But considering the period of
detention and also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents
reported against the petitioners, I think this bail application can be
allowed.
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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. The 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 him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit any offence
similar to the offence alleged in this case.
5. The 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.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner/s, 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
SKS
