Kerala High Court
Preethi Pramod 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.3329 OF 2021
CRIME NO.328/2021 OF NAGAROOR POLICE STATION ,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
PREETHI PRAMOD
AGED 26 YEARS
PRAVEEN BHAVAN, IRAKUZHY P.O, KADAKKAL VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT
691536
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.S.SEETHA
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NAGARUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT
691536
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.3329 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3329 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. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.328/2021 of Nagarur
Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 200, 419 and 470 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and her
husband are living separately. According to the defacto complainant,
the petitioner without the consent or knowledge of the defacto
complainant changed the name of their child by committing forgery,
impersonation and cheating. Hence it is alleged that the accused
committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the husband of the petitioner is the defacto complainant. The
counsel submitted that there are matrimonial disputes pending
between the petitioner and her husband. The case itself is registered
based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court
which was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this
Court grant her bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, matrimonial dispute is
pending between the petitioner and her husband. Husband of the
petitioner is the defacto complainant. I don't want to make any
observation on the merit of the case. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, 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 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 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, she shall
be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(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 her 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 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
al/-
