High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-12Bail applications allowed; accused released on ...

Anoop S/o Narayan and Subin S/o Vas u v. State of Kerala; Vasu S/o Parameshwaran v. State of Kerala (BA Nos. 2724/2020 & 2479/2020)

Case / Petition Number:BA 2724/2020; BA 2479/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-12
Court Decision / Holding: Bail applications allowed with conditions: release on self-bond, provision of residence address and phone number, bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, immediate reporting to jurisdictional SHO, obligation to appear before Court as required, not to threaten or tamper with witnesses, and strict compliance with State/Central lockdown guidelines; bail bonds to be forwarded to the jurisdictional Court; breach of conditions may result in cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed; accused released on bail with conditions as specified; compliance with COVID-19 guidelines required.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoop S/o Narayanan
Subin S/o Vas u
Vasu S/o Parameshwaran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam 682031
The Range Officer, Peruvannamuzhy Forest Range, Kozhikode-673526

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Nidhi Balachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• P.P. Sri. Ajith Murali
• Santosh Peter (Sr)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail order concerning two bail applications (BA Nos. 2724/2020 and 2479/2020) arising from O.R.No.02/2020 of the Peruvannamuzhy Forest Station, Kozhikode, under offences punishable under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Sections 2(16), 2(20), 2(31)(b), 39, 49A(b), 49B, 50, 51). Accused Nos. 2, 3 (Anoop and Subin) in BA 2724/2020 and accused No. 4 (Vasu) in BA 2479/2020 sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C, arguing that co-accused (1st and 5th) had already been granted anticipatory bail or bail (BA 2654/2020) and that detention should be avoided in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing norms. The Public Prosecutor urged caution given wildlife offences but conceded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions, especially since steps were already taken for other co-accused. The Court, noting the ongoing pandemic, cites directions from the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court (Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons, Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020, and W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020) to minimize prison population, and relies on the principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, as reiterated in Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019) (16) SCALE 870. On this basis, the Court allows the bail petitions with enumerated conditions for release with self-bond, address and phone details, Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, reporting obligations, appearance as required, no witness tampering, and compliance with COVID-related guidelines. The order emphasizes social distancing obligations inside prisons and validity of bail subject to continued compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 438 Cr.P.C.Section 441 Cr.P.C.Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Sections 2(16), 2(20), 2(31)(b), 39, 49A(b), 49B, 50, 51)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the accused have surrendered, are in custody since late April 2020, and that this Court had already granted anticipatory or actual bail to other co-accused (1st and 5th) in BA 2654/2020 dated 11 May 2020. They urged parity with those orders, emphasised the COVID-19 context, and sought release on bail with standard conditions under Section 439 Cr.P.C, arguing that fowls and wildlife offences do not warrant perpetual detention given the social distances and the need to protect fundamental rights and fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued for stringent conditions if bail is granted, noting the serious nature of wildlife offences and potential risk of tampering with witnesses, but also acknowledging the need to avoid overcrowding in prisons in light of COVID-19 guidelines. The prosecution relied on the prior bail orders for co-accused as persuasive and urged adherence to necessary safeguards.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify directives to minimize prison population and manage inmate numbers during the pandemic.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reaffirm bail as a general rule and detention as an exception to safeguard fair trial.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench Kerala HC directions regarding minimizing inmates and social distancing used to justify release under 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 Anoop S/o Narayan and Subin S/o Vas u v. State of Kerala; Vasu S/o Parameshwaran v. State of Kerala (BA Nos. 2724/2020 & 2479/2020) 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 12TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 22ND VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2724 OF 2020** **(OR NO 02/2020 OF PERUVANNAMUZHY FOREST STATION, KOZHIKODE)** ## **- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO 2 & 3 :** 1. **ANOOP, S/O NARAYANAN, THARAVATTAMPARIL HOUSE, MUTHUKAD (ACCUSED NO 2), PARUTHIPPARA, PERUVANNAMIZHI.** - **2.SUBIN, S/O VASU, PARUTHIPPARA, PERUVANNAMUZHY** **BY ADV.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN** ## **- RESPONDENTS:** 1. **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031.** **2. THE RANGE OFFICER, PERUVANNAMUZHI FOREST RANGE, KOZHIKODE-673 526.** **BY P.P. SRI.AJITH MURALI & SANTHOSH PETER(SR)** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 22ND VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2479 OF 2020** **(OR NO 02/2020 OF PERUVANNAMUZHY FOREST STATION, KOZHIKODE)** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 4 :** **VASU AGED 68/2020, S/O PARAMESHWARAN, PARUTHIPPARA, PERUVANNAMUZHY-673528.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031.** **2. THE RANGE OFFICER,PERUVANNAMUZHI FOREST RANGE, KOZHIKODE-673 526.** **BY P.P. SRI.AJITH MURALI & SANTHOSH PETER(SR)** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioners in B.A.No.2724 of 2020 are accused Nos 2 and 3 and petitioner in B.A.No.2479 of 2020 is the 4[th] accused in O.R.No.02/2020 of Peruvannamuzhy Forest Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(20), 2(31) (b), 39, 49 A(b), 49B, 50, 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 3.The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 killed a pea fowl (Pavo Cristatus) and collected feathers and hunted Sambar (Cervus Unicolor) and Wild Pig (Suscrofa) for the purpose of consumption of their meat. The petitioners in B.A.No.2724 of 2020 surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 27.04.2020 and the petitioner in B.A.No.2479 of 2020 **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** was arrested on 19.04.2020. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, this Court granted anticipatory bail to 1[st] and 5[th] accused in the above case as per order dated 11.05.2020 in B.A.No.2654 of 2020. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are in custody from 27.04.2020 and 19.04.2020 respectively. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, it is the fact that the accused Nos. 1 and 5 are released on bail. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, on stringent conditions, bail can be granted in this case. 6.After hearing both sides and considering the fact that accused Nos.1 and 5 are already released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C and considering the submission of the Public Prosecutor, this Bail Application can be allowed. 7. Moreover,considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the ## **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** 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. 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 ## **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. The Superintendent of Jail concerned where the petitioners are incarcerated is directed to release the petitioners on bail on executing a self bond ensuring that they will appear before the Court concerned as and when required, if they are not in detention in any other case. It is further directed that the Superintendent of Jail should get the bail bond from the petitioners 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 petitioners would be residing after **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** his/their release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioners will forthwith forward the bail bond obtained from the petitioners to the jurisdictional Court. 4. The petitioners immediately after release from the prison, report before the Station House Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station and shall furnish their phone number and the place where they are going to reside. The Station House Officer concerned shall keep a vigil on the whereabouts of the petitioners and shall ensure that the petitioners does not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioners shall appear ## **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** - before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 6. The petitioners 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 petitioners shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central **BA NO.2724 & 2479 OF 2020** Government with respect to keeping of social distancing and other directions in the wake of declared lock-down. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** **RK**