High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-05Bail granted to petitioner with conditions.

Anil P.S v. State of Kerala & The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjar Police Station, Kanjar, Idukki District

Case / Petition Number:BA NO.2521 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on executing a self-bond and furnishing a bail bond under Section 441 Cr.P.C. The jail authorities must collect the petitioner’s phone number and residential address and forward the bail bond to the jurisdictional court. The petitioner must report to the Station House Officer immediately after release and provide his residence and contact information. He must appear before the Investigating Officer as required, cooperate with the investigation, and not threaten or tamper with witnesses. The petitioner must execute a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum within a week after the court reopens. The applicant must adhere to all State and Central Government COVID-19 social distancing guidelines. If any condition is violated, the jurisdictional court may cancel the bail. Otherwise, the order directs the jail to release the petitioner subject to these terms.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to petitioner with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anil P.S

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjar Police Station, Kanjar, Idukki District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. B Surjith
• Arun Jose Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri.Ajith Murali
• Santosh Peter (Sr)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Anil P.S., accused in Crime No. 55 of 2020 registered at Kanjar Police Station, Idukki District, alleging offences under Sections 302, 201 and 202 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2020 and has remained in custody for about 92 days with no final report filed. The petitioner contends he is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. because investigation has not culminated in a charge sheet and the period of custody exceeds the requisite threshold. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, concedes that no final report has been filed and supports the statutory bail. After hearing both sides, the Kerala High Court, sitting through Video Conference, holds that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing directives, grants bail with conditions. The court cites Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench decision in W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020 for guidance, and relies on Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement to reaffirm bail jurisprudence. The order directs the jail authorities to release the petitioner on self-bond with further bonds, obtain contact details, ensure appearance, and comply with investigation, subject to strict social distancing norms. If breached, bail can be canceled. The bail is thus granted with specified conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Section 167 of Cr.P.C.Section 441 of Cr.P.C.Sections 302, 201, 202 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant argues entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. as custody has crossed the 90-day threshold and no final report has been filed. He emphasizes the need to reduce prison population in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and submits that the fundamental presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial require release on bail pending investigation and charge framing, with appropriate conditions. The counsel relies on established bail jurisprudence that favors granting bail to ensure fair trial and avoid unnecessary pre-trial detention, especially in the pandemic context.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, submits that no final report has been filed yet; since the investigation is ongoing, statutory bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. is pressed as a consideration only if the specified time frame is met. The respondents do not contest the benefit of bail in principle but emphasize compliance with the statutory framework and the need to monitor the accused, ensure cooperation with the investigation, and prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social distancing norms in prisons; used as contextual backdrop for bail in the pandemic.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directives cited for minimizing inmate population and related guidelines.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Reiterates bail as the rule and refusal as the exception; supports grant of bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anil P.S v. State of Kerala & The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjar Police Station, Kanjar, Idukki District and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2521 OF 2020** **(Crime No.55/2020 of Kanjar Police Station, Idukki** **District)** ## **Petitioner/Accused No.1** Anil P.S, Aged 32 Years, S/o Sivaraman, Ani Nivas House, Arakkulam Village By Advocate Sri. B Surjith & Arun Jose Thomas ## **Respondents / State & Complainant** 1. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam, Pin – 682031 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjar Police Station, Kanjar, Idukki District, Pin - 685590 By PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Sri.AJITH MURALI & SANTHOSH PETER(SR) **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** BA NO.2521 OF 2020 ..2.. **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------B.A.No.2521 of 2020 ---------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of May, 2020** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No.55 of 2020 of Kanjar Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2020 and he is in custody. 3.The prosecution case is that, on 15.1.2020, the petitioner herein inflicted injury on the head and neck of one Sasidaran using wooden plank and chopper causing his death. It is also alleged that the petitioner BA NO.2521 OF 2020 **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** burnt the clothes of both deceased and himself. The 2[nd] accused who is none other than the wife of the petitioner herein had cleaned the place of incident with cloth and later burnt the cloth. The further case of the prosecution is that, the 3[rd] accused purposefully concealed the incident from the authorities. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in custody from 02.02.2020. According to him, he is entitled for statutory bail because he is in custody for the last 92 days and so far the police has not filed final report. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the final report is not filed so far and hence the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. 6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed. Since the petitioner is in BA NO.2521 OF 2020 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** custody from 02.02.2020 and 92 days are over after his arrest and since no final report is filed in the case, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail as per Section 167 of Cr.P.C. 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 COVID19 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. 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** BA NO.2521 OF 2020 ..5.. **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 Superintendent of Jail concerned where the petitioner is incarcerated is directed to release the petitioner on bail on executing a self bond ensuring that he will appear before the Court concerned as and BA NO.2521 OF 2020 ..6.. when required, if he is not in detention in any other case. It is further directed that the Superintendent of Jail should get the bail bond from the petitioner as stipulated in Section 441 Cr.P.C. 2. The Superintendent of Jail concerned shall also get the phone number and the address at which the petitioner would be residing after his release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioner will forthwith forward the bail bond obtained from the petitioner to the jurisdictional Court. BA NO.2521 OF 2020 ..7.. 4. The petitioner immediately after release from the prison, report before the Station House Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station and shall furnish his phone number and the place where he is going to reside. The Station House Officer concerned shall keep a vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioner and shall ensure that the petitioner does not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to BA NO.2521 OF 2020 **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 6. The petitioner shall within one week from the commencement of the functioning of the jurisdictional court, if the court is not functioning at present, execute a bond for - Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 7. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping - of social distancing and other BA NO.2521 OF 2020 **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** directions in the wake of declared lock-down. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** skj