High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-08Bail granted with conditions including self bon...

Pradeep.K v State of Kerala and The Excise Inspector, Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragod

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.2640 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2020-05-08
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions. The Superintendent of Jail is directed to release the petitioner on bail on executing a self bond under Section 441 Cr.P.C., with a further requirement to obtain the petitioner’s residential address and phone number. The jail shall forward the bail bond to the jurisdictional court. The petitioner must report to the Station House Officer and ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer as required, not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and to comply with all government social distancing guidelines. A bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties is to be executed within one week of the court’s functioning, subject to fulfillment of conditions. If any condition is violated, the jurisdictional court may cancel the bail. Bench: Single Judge.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with conditions including self bond, Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, address/phone disclosure, reporting obligations, adherence to COVID-19 guidelines, and potential bail cancellation for violations.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pradeep.K

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Excise Inspector, Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragod

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V.A Vinod

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri AJITH MURALI, PP
• Sri SANTHOSH PETER SR.PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a High Court of Kerala bail application (B.A.No.2640 of 2020) by Pradeep.K, accused in SC No.565 of 2018 arising from Crime No.72/2015 of the Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragod. The petitioner is charged under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act for allegedly possessing 7.2 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) intended for sale in Karnataka. The Sessions Court had earlier dismissed the bail application and the petitioner surrendered in February 2020 following a non‑bailable warrant, prompting this application for bail before the High Court. The State contends that the accused’s presence is essential to complete the trial and that he has violated bail conditions, justifying rejection or stringent conditions. The petitioner counters that he did not commit the offense, that he regularly appeared before the trial court, and that the lapse in attendance resulted from a communication gap with counsel. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and guidelines to reduce prison populations (cited COVID-19 prison confinement orders) and to uphold the bail principle that bail is the rule, the High Court exercises its discretion to grant bail with multiple strict conditions. The order mandates release on a self bond under Section 441 Cr.P.C., collection of residence and contact details, prompt forwarding of bail bonds to the relevant court, reporting to the police, and adherence to social distancing norms, with a Rs.50,000 bond and two sureties, subject to compliance and potential cancellation for violations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 441 Cr.P.C.Section 58 of Kerala Abkari Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the accused did not commit the offence under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act; there was a genuine communication lapse with counsel causing a missed appearance; he regularly appeared before the trial court on other dates; a non‑bailable warrant was issued only due to that lapse; surrender on 20.02.2020; thus, bail should be granted with appropriate conditions to secure fair trial and public safety.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution submits that the accused’s presence is necessary to proceed with the trial and that his failure to appear constitutes a violation of bail obligations; the gravity of the offence and risk to witnesses/fair trial warrant stringent conditions or denial of bail; however the Court considers the COVID-19 context to justify measured relief with strict conditions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to affirm the basic bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing norms and prison-related directives during the pandemic.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	—	Positive	Full Bench directions for minimizing prison populations and related safeguards.

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 Pradeep.K v State of Kerala and The Excise Inspector, Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragod 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 08TH DAY OF MAY, 2020 / 18TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **B.A.No.2640 /2020** (S.C No 565/2018 on the files of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod in Crime No 72/2015 of Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragod) ## **Petitioner** / Accused Pradeep.K, aged 35 years, S/o Gopala, Subhash Nagar Veedu, Kubannur Village, Manjeshwaram, Kasaragod – 671 323 ## By Adv. Sri V.A VINOD Vs ## **Respondents** /Complainant and State; 1.State of Kerala rep; by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 682031. ## 2.The Excise Inspector, Kumbala Excise Range, Kasaragode – 671 321 **SRI. AJITH MURALI, PP SRI. SANTHOSH PETER SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.2640 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 8[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 accused in SC No.565 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 58 of Kerala Abkari Act. 3.The prosecution case is that on 1.12.2015, the petitioner was found in possession of 7.200 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor which is meant for sale in Karnataka State only and hence committed the above B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 3 said offence. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not committed the offence. Moreover, he submitted that he appeared before the court below after receipt of summons. He was regularly appearing before the court. Due to a communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel he was not able to appear before the court on a particular day and the learned Session Judge issued non bailable warrant. When the petitioner surrendered before the court below on 20.2.2020, he was remanded and the bail application is dismissed. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of the petitioner is necessary for completing the trial. He violated the conditions of the bail order. - 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of this - case, and considering the fact that the petitioner was B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 4 regularly appearing before the lower court and his absence was on a particular day on which he was represented through counsel on all earlier occasions, I think bail can be granted 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 B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 5 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 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 B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 6 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. 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 B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 7 does not violate the terms of the undertaking. 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 B.A.NO. 2640 OF 2020 8 respect to keeping of social distancing and other directions in the wake of declared lockdown. 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** ska