Kerala High Court
Kiran K.U 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.2941 OF 2021
CRIME NO.114/2021 OF Arthungal Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:
KIRAN K.U
AGED 21 YEARS
SON OF UDAYAPPAN,KAYICHIRA WARD NO.9, MUHAMMA
P.O, ALAPPUZHA
688525
BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD
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.2941/2021
..2..
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2941 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.114/2021
of the Arthungal Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 458,323,324, 341, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.01.2021 at
01.30 a.m., the petitioner and the other accused trespassed
into the courtyard of the defacto complainant and rang the
calling bell and when the defacto complainant opened the
door, one of the accused brandished an iron road against the
defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused committed
B.A.No.2941/2021
..3..
the offences by showing sword stick and by committing
mischief.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitoiner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged
against the petitioner is under Section 458 IPC. The counsel
submitted that there is a delay of about seven days in filing
the complaint. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is
ready to abide by any conditions, if the this Court grant him
bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. It is true that whether the delay in filing the
complaint is explained by the defacto complainant is a matter
to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation
about the merit of the case. The only non-bailable offence
alleged against the petitioner is under Section 458 of the
Indian Penal Code. In 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
B.A.No.2941/2021
..4..
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
B.A.No.2941/2021
..5..
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/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two
B.A.No.2941/2021
..6..
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
Government and Central Government with
B.A.No.2941/2021
..7..
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
