Kerala High Court
Abdul Khader M.K 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.3365 OF 2021
CRIME NO.232/2021 OF Chandera Police Station , Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABDUL KHADER M.K
AGED 27 YEARS
SON OF MAIMOONA M.K
RESIDING AT SAYIMAS,
KUTTICHI, SOUTH THIRKKARIPUR P.O.,
UDUMBANTHALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
671311
2 MAYIN KUNHI MADAMBILLATH
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.K.KHADAR,
RESIDING AT MADAMBILLATH HOUSE,
KUTTICHI, SOUTH THIRKKARIPUR P.O.,
UDUMBANTHALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
671311
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
671310
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. .3365 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3365 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 petitioners are the accused in Crime No.232/2021 of
Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 324 and 452 read with 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in this case
trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant on 17.04.2021
and wrongfully restrained the son of the defacto complainant and
assaulted him by hands and sticks. The alleged incident happened at
5 pm.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only
non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section
452 IPC. The counsel submitted that it is a case and the counter
case. Annexure I and II are the FIR of the cases. Annexure-A2 FIR
was registered at first. The counsel submitted that the petitioners
are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court them bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think that the bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. The only non-bailable offence
alleged against the petitioners is under Section 452 IPC. Admittedly,
it is a case and counter case. There are allegation and counter
allegation about the same incident. I am not in a position to decide
about the correctness of the versions while considering a bail
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think that 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 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
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 cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
sd
