SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19218

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
MURALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./6569/2020



The jurisprudence of bail underlines that it is generally granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.

Headnote:

Bail - Domestic Violence - Section 438, 31 IPC, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - The court allowed bail with stringent conditions citing ongoing marital relationship and precedent on bail jurisprudence.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is accused in a case alleging abuse and assault under several IPC sections and violation of a court order under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner claims the allegations are incorrect and asserts the marital relationship with the complainant is ongoing.

Finding of the Court:

Bail was granted on stringent conditions due to the continued marital relationship, without making any observations on the case's merits. The court emphasized bail as a rule, promoting fair trial opportunities.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the serious allegations, and under what conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; stringent conditions help safeguard the investigation while allowing the accused their rights.

Final Decision: Bail granted with stringent conditions.

O R D E R

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1595 of 2020 of Paravur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 and 188 of IPC . The offence under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also alleged.

3. The prosecution case is that on 21.8.2020 at

7.30 p.m., the petitioner abused the defacto complainant and assaulted. It is also alleged that the petitioner violated the order passed by the Munsiff- Magistrate Court, Paravur in a Domestic Violence Act case.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are not correct. The counsel submitted that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The counsel submitted that the only non-bailable offence is under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act .

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed including a condition not to commit similar offence.

7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the marital relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is even now in existence. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. 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.

9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inChidambaram. 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.

10. 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 ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Governme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top