Kerala High Court
Sunilkumar 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.3587 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1899/2020 OF Munnar Police Station , Idukki
PETITIONERS:
1 SUNILKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS,
PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEW COLONY,
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, MUNNAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612
2 MANURAJ VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS,
ALAMPALASSERRY, AKAPARAMBU, MEKKAD,
NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM -683 585
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSEPH MARY DAS
SMT.ANU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION,
AGED 50 YEARS,
MOOLAKADAI, MUNNAR, KERALA - 685 612
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 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:
Bail Appl..No.3587 OF 2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3587 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of May, 2021
ORDER
The bail application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1899/2020 of
Munnar Police Station, Idukki District. The above case is registered
against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under
Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 341, 342, 452, 365,
397, 450 and 506 (ii) read with 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the other
accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous
weapons. It is alleged that the defacto complainant, who had some
issues with a Church, questioned the construction of a building
belonging to the Church encroaching upon some property, in
consequence of which the petitioners committed the above said offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per order
dated 25.01.2021 in B.A.No.8266/2020 and order dated 18.11.2021 in
Bail Appl..No.3587 OF 2021
B.A.No.9001/2020 this Court granted bail to some of the co-accused.
The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any
condition, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor, even
though opposed the bail application, submitted that if this Court grant
them bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.
5. In the light of the fact that the co-accused were already
granted bail, I see no reason to deny bail to the petitioners in these
bail applications.
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)
Bail Appl..No.3587 OF 2021
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. The 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 executing a bond for a sum of
Bail Appl..No.3587 OF 2021
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. 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;
4. The petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the Court;
5. The petitioners shall not commit any
offence similar to the offence alleged in this case.
6. 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.
7. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can
Bail Appl..No.3587 OF 2021
cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though
the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ss
