Asif P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12365 Ker

           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.3059 OF 2021

    CRIME NO.217/2021 OF Hosdurg Police Station , Kasargod


PETITIONER/S:

            ASIF P
            AGED 33 YEARS
            PATTILLAT HOUSE, MANDIYAN P.O, MANIKOTH, KASARAGOD
            671315

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.RAHUL SASI
            SMT.NEETHU PREM

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. .3059 of 2021                 2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                      --------------------------------
                        B.A.No.3059 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. 217/2021 of

Hosdurg Police Station. Above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 326 r/w 34 of the

IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that on 1.3.2021 at about 9.30 pm,

while the defacto complainant is travelling on his motor cycle along

the Manikoth-Kotta road in Ajanur village, accused Nos. 2 to 5 under

abetment of the applicant and as a result of the conspiracy that was

hatched by the applicant and the other accused in furtherance of

common intention due to political reasons abetted the rest of the

accused to pelt stones and mud on the defacto complainant as a

result of which he lost his control and fell down from the motor cycle

and sustained grievous hut on his leg.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is the 3 rd accused and the 1st accused was already released

on bail by this Court as per order dated 26.3.2021 under Sec.438

Cr.P.C. Annexure-A2 is the order. The counsel submitted that the

petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public

Prosecutor submitted that the if this Court grant him bail in the light

of Annexure-A2 order, stringent conditions may be imposed.

5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can

be allowed on stringent conditions. In the light of Annexure-A2 order

dated 26.3.2021 in BA No. 2458/2021, I see no reason to deny bail to

the petitioner also.

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, he 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 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 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 SKS