High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-04-28Bail Granted

Anoop, Jobi Varghese, Riyas and Shanu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. No. 2466 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2020-04-28
Court Decision / Holding: This bail application is allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) Each petitioner shall furnish their permanent address and phone number, as well as the addresses and phone numbers of their proposed sureties/immediate relatives, and shall file an undertaking that they and their sureties will execute the bail bond before the jurisdictional court within one week of its reopening. The Jail Superintendent shall release them to the Station House Officer of the relevant police station after noting these details. (ii) Each petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court within one week of reopening. (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Tuesdays and Saturdays between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. until the final report is filed. (iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. (v) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. (vi) They shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the jurisdictional court. (vii) If any condition is violated, the Station House Officer may approach the court for cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoop
Jobi Varghese
Riyas
Shanu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkencherry Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Johnson Varikkappallil

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Pushpalatha M.K., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Four accused persons, Anoop, Jobi Varghese, Riyas and Shanu, approach this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail in Crime No.236/2020 of the Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad District. They face offences under sections 341, 324, 308, 506(ii) and 120B r/w 34 IPC, arising from allegations that on 08/04/2020 they formed an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons with the common intention to commit homicide, restrained the complainant, and caused injuries; one petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a wooden-stick injury. They were arrested on 10.04.2020; their bail applications were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. The petitioners contend that they have been in custody since 10.04.2020 (about 18 days), the investigation is practically complete, and continued detention is unnecessary. They rely on Supreme Court precedents that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and on COVID-19-era directives for decongesting prisons. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail on the ground that the investigation is ongoing and custodial custody is necessary. The court cites Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, and In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 in Prisons, as well as a Kerala Full Bench order directing decongestion, to uphold the bail regime in this context. It grants bail, noting nearly complete investigation, the petitioners’ detention, and public health considerations, subject to strict conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSections 341, 324, 308, 506(ii) and 120B read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
COVID-19 related decongestion of prisons as a guiding consideration in bail decisions.
Historical influence of Magna Carta on liberty (contextual reference).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused have been in custody since 10.04.2020 (about 18 days) and the investigation is practically complete. Continued detention is unnecessary and infringes Articles 21 and the broader liberty guarantees. Citing high court and Supreme Court precedents, they contend bail is the rule and jail the exception, especially in the COVID-19 era, where decongestion measures reduce the risk of undue detention. They emphasized the recovery and near completion of investigation, the absence of any aggravating factors, and the need to balance public interest with individual liberties.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor argued that the investigation is still in progress and custodial detention is warranted to ensure cooperation, prevent tampering with evidence, and maintain public order. They stressed the seriousness of the alleged offences and the potential risk to witnesses, emphasizing adherence to due process while limiting premature release during an ongoing investigation.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Cited for the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that refusal of bail is a restriction on Article 21 rights.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India	(2018) 11 SCC 1	Positive	Used to reinforce the bail principle and the need to balance liberty with security.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab	(1980) 2 SCC 565	Positive	Foundational authority supporting bail as a fundamental liberty principle.
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement	(2019) SCC Online SC 1549	Positive	Fortifies the view that bail concerns are central to liberty jurisprudence.
In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons	Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	COVID-19 related directive to decongest prisons influencing bail considerations.
W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 (Suo Motu)	(Full Bench of Kerala High Court Order, 2020)	Positive	Full Bench direction to decongest prisons, supporting the COVID-era bail approach.

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 Anoop, Jobi Varghese, Riyas and Shanu v. State of Kerala 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 C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020 /8TH VAISAKHA, 1942 Bail Appl.No.2466 OF 2020 ## **Crime No. 236/2020 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad District** ## **Applicants/Accused Nos. 1 to 4:** 1. Anoop, aged 28 years, S/o.Andavan, Sreekrishna Nivas, Kaikolathara, Pulinkuttam, Manjapra P.O, Kannambra, Palakkad. 2. Jobi Varghese, aged 30 years, S/o.Varghese, Kizhakkethadathil House, Thenidukku, Vadakkancherry, Palakkad. 3. Riyas, aged 30 years, S/o.Veeran, Thendiyampara, Kannamkulam, Moolamkode.P.O, Kizhakkancherry, Palakkad. 4. Shanu, aged 20 years, S/o.Santhosh, Near Elamkavu, Kizhakkancherry, Palakkad. By Adv.Johnson Varikkappallil ## **Respondents/Complainant** : Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 2 1. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad-678682. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.04.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 3 ## **ORDER** This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.236/2020 of the Vadakkencherry Police Station. The petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 341, 324, 308, 506(ii) and 120B r/w section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: On 08/04/2020, formed an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons, with a common intention to commit culpable offence of homicide, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated him. One of the petitioners caused voluntary hurt on the defacto complainant with a wooden stick. Hence the defacto complainant sustained injuries all over his body. Thus, the petitioners have committed the above offences. Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 4 4. The petitioners were arrested on 10.04.2020. Their application for bail was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Alathur by order dated 13.04.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.2774/2020. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor via video-conferencing. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been in custody since 10/04/2020 which is now 18 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioners' continued detention in prison is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is still in progress. The petitioners' may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** [2012 (1) SCC 40] held as follows: Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 5 "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution". 9. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India** [2018 (11) SCC 1] after going back to the days of the Magna Carta and after referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] has reiterated the same view in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra).** Again, in P **.Chidamabram v. Directorate of Enforcement** [(2019) SCC Online SC 1549] the above proposition has been fortified. 10. After the outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic in the country, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020) observed that the issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern. The State Governments were directed to take adequate measures to de-congest the prisons. Following the above direction, the Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 6 Home Department, Government of Kerala has promulgated order dated 25.03.2020, inter alia, directing the release of under-trial prisoners alleged to have committed offences punishable with punishment for seven years or less. Later, a Full Bench of this Court by order dated 25.03.20202 in W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 (Suo Motu), has issued directions to decongest the prisons in the State, keeping in mind the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioners have been in custody since 10/04/2020; that the recovery has been effected; that the investigation as against the petitioners are almost complete; that the petitioners continued detention is unnecessary; the directions of the the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions; and in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Full Bench of this Court to decongest prisons in view of Covid-19 pandemic, I am inclined to allow this bail application. Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 7 12. In the result this bail application is allowed, on the following conditions:- (i) Due to the present National lock-down and the closure of Courts, the Jail Superintendent, where the petitioners are incarcerated, is directed to release the petitioners on them furnishing their permanent address and phone number and the addresses and phone numbers of their proposed sureties/immediate relatives. The petitioners shall also file an undertaking to the Jail Superintendent that they and their sureties will execute the bail bond before the jurisdictional Court within one week of its re-opening. The Jail Superintendent after ensuring the compliance of the above conditions, shall release the petitioners to the Station House Officer of the Police Station where the crime has been registered, who shall after noting down the above details, release the petitioners. The Investigating Officer shall keep a close vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioners. Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 8 (ii) The petitioners shall within one week from the re-opening of the jurisdictional Court, if not already re-opened, execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Tuesdays and Saturdays between 10.00 a.m and 11 a.m till final report is filed. (iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in the case, in any manner, whatsoever. (v) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. (vi) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. Bail Appl.no.2466 OF 2020 9 (vii) Needless to mention that, if the petitioners violate any of the above conditions, the Station House Officer shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court and file appropriate application seeking for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** Nsd