High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-15Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Junaid v. State of Kerala & The Station House Officer, Perambra Police Station

Case / Petition Number:BA No. 2803 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-05-15
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed with stringent conditions. The Superintendent of Jail is directed to release the petitioner on bail on a self-bond and a bail bond, and to collect the petitioner’s phone number and residential address. The bail bond must be forwarded to the jurisdictional court. Post-release, the petitioner must report to the SHO and provide contact and residence details. The petitioner must appear before the investigating officer as required, cooperate with the investigation, and not threaten or tamper with witnesses. A bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount must be executed within a week of the jurisdictional court’s functioning. The petitioner must abide by social distancing and other government guidelines and shall not enter the Perambra jurisdiction until final report submission. Violations can lead to cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Junaid S/O Abdurahiman

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Nidhi Balachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. B. Jayasurya (Sr)
• C.K. Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail petition (BA No. 2803 of 2020) concerning accused Junaid in Crime No. 73 of 2020 of Perambra Police Station, charged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case alleges that the accused restrained the defacto complainant in a school premises and stabbed him in the chest with a knife. Arrested on 02.02.2020, he was granted interim bail for 30 days by order dated 07.04.2020 due to the special circumstances of the COVID-19 lockdown; after surrender, the Magistrate dismissed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor argued that, though in custody for about 70 days, the grant of bail should be with stringent conditions given the seriousness of the offenses and ongoing investigation. The Court, invoking social-distancing directives from the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 jurisprudence and the Kerala High Court Full Bench directive in W.P.(C) No. 9400/2020, and reaffirming the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, allowed the bail application with specific conditions. The order requires: release on self-bond with a bail bond, provision of post-release address and phone number, forwarding of the bail bond to the jurisdictional court, reporting to SHO, cooperation with investigation, bond with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, adherence to COVID-19 guidelines, restriction from Perambra jurisdiction until final report, and potential cancellation of bail for violation. The decision rests on balancing fair trial rights with public safety amid a pandemic.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 441 Cr.P.C.Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was arrested on 02.02.2020, and interim bail for 30 days was granted in light of COVID-19 on 07.04.2020; after surrender, the Magistrate rejected the bail application. Given the extended detention (about 70 days) and the ongoing pandemic, the petitioner should be granted bail with stringent conditions to ensure fair trial and compliance with investigative directions. The court should apply the COVID-19 specific directions and the bail principle (bail as rule) to permit release with conditions to prevent crowding in prisons and to reduce infection risk.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail, noting the interim 30-day bail had lapsed and the petitioner has already been in custody for a substantial period (about 70 days). He argued for stringent conditions if bail is granted, highlighting the seriousness of the offenses and the need to ensure cooperation with investigation and maintenance of witnesses. He relied on the COVID-19 related directions to balance public health with the accused’s liberty, suggesting any bail order should include safeguards like reporting requirements, bond, sureties, and adherence to social distancing and other government guidelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing measures and directives to minimize prison populations in the COVID-19 context.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail is the rule and jail the exception within the broader bail jurisprudence.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Cited for Kerala High Court directions on minimizing imprisonment and adhering to social-distancing norms in prisons.

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 Junaid v. State of Kerala & The Station House Officer, Perambra Police Station 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** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 25TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **(Cr. No 73/2020 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode)** ## **- PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 1 :** **JUNAID, S/O ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PUTHALATH HOUSE, AVADUKKA (P.O.), CHANGAROTH- 673528.** **BY ADV.SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN** ## **- RESPONDENTS:** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,** **ERNAKULAM- 682031.** **2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673525.** **BY P.P. SRI.B.JAYASURYA (SR) & C.K.PRASAD** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No. 2803 of 2020 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15[th] day of May, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 73 of 2020 of Perambra Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 3.The prosecution case is that the accused restrained the defacto complainant in a school premises and stabbed him on his chest with a knife. The petitioner was originally arrested on 02.02.2020. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2020. Thereafter, this Court, as per order dated 07.04.2020, granted interim bail to **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **3** the petitioner for 30 days. Annexure-A3 is the order. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that after 30 days, he surrendered before the court concerned, as directed by this Court and thereafter, as per Annexure -A4 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the Bail Application. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the petitioner complied with the direction and considering the fact that, altogether he is in custody for 70 days, if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 6.After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed. As per Annexure-A2 order, this Court granted bail to the petitioner for 30 days in the light of special circumstances of Covid-19 and the lock down. In Annexure – A3, it is specifically stated by this Court that, after the expiry of 30 days, the petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail. As directed in Annexure – A3 order, the petitioner surrendered before the Magistrate Court and file a Bail Application. The learned **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **4** Magistrate dismissed the Bail Application as per Annexure - A4 order. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the period of detention of the petitioner, I think, this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 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. 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 **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **5** 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 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 **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **6** 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. 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 do not violate the terms of the undertaking. **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **7** 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to 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 **BA NO.2803 OF 2020** **8** other directions in the wake of declared lockdown. 8. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction limit of Perambra Police Station, till final report is submitted in Crime No.73 of 2020 of the said police station. 9. 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** **RK**