High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-05-05Bail granted to petitioners with stringent cond...

Pramod and Sujith v State of Kerala & Excise Inspector, Neyyattinkara Excise Range Office

Case / Petition Number:BA NO.2564 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
Judgment Date: 2020-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions as set out in the order: (1) release on self bonds; (2) obtain bail bonds with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000 each; (3) provide phone number and residential address post-release; (4) bail bonds forwarded to jurisdictional court; (5) petitioners must report to the Station House Officer on release and ensure availability for investigations; (6) petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer as required and cooperate; (7) comply with all COVID-19 and social distancing guidelines issued by the State and Central authorities; (8) court may cancel bail if conditions are violated.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to petitioners with stringent conditions as detailed in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pramod
Sujith

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Excise Inspector, Neyyattinkara Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Latheesh Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Pramod and Sujith, are accused in Crime No.32/2020 of the Thirupuram Excise Range, registered under sections 8(1) and (2) read with section 67B of the Abkari Act. Arrested on 8 April 2020 and currently in custody, they move for bail under Section 439 CrPC, contending the quantity of contraband is small and that continued detention would aggravate the health risk amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes outright denial but urges that bail, if granted, be with stringent conditions to ensure appearance, cooperation, and public safety. The court notes that the bail is the norm and jail the exception, citing established jurisprudence, and emphasizes social distancing norms from COVID-19 related directives. Relying on the decisions cited, including Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case and Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement, the court finds that the small quantity and the arrest date justify granting bail under stringent conditions. The order directs the petitioners to be released on bail on self-bonds, to furnish Rs.50,000 sureties each, provide contact details and residence, report to the IO, appear as required, and comply with ongoing investigations and COVID-19 guidelines. The bail is granted on these terms, with non-compliance enabling cancellation. The order is passed by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan via video conference on 5 May 2020.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 8(1) and 2 read with Section 67B of the Abkari ActSection 441 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
Social distancing and COVID-19 related prison guidelines as approved by the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court Full Bench directives.
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870) — bail principle

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for petitioners submitted that the accused have been in custody since 8.4.2020 and that the contraband quantities (1.5 litres and 2.25 litres of arrack) are small. They contended that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, and that in view of the COVID-19 situation, reducing prison populations and adhering to social distancing justify releasing them under stringent conditions to enable a fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed unconditional bail and argued that, while bail can be granted, it should be with stringent conditions to ensure presence, cooperation with the investigation, and to safeguard witnesses and public order, bearing in mind the ongoing pandemic.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify directions to minimize prison populations and ensure social distancing in prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

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 Pramod and Sujith v State of Kerala & Excise Inspector, Neyyattinkara Excise Range Office 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.2564 OF 2020** **(Crime No.32/2020 of Excise Range Office, Thirupuram, Thiruvananthapuram District)** ## **Petitioners/Accused:** 1. Pramod, S/o Appukuttan, Aged 40 years, - Kadannurvila Puthenveettil, Athiyanoor Village, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram 2. Sujith,s/o Maniyan,Aged 26 years, - M.S Bhavan,Kottukal, Neyyattinkara Village, - Thiruvananthapuram By Adv.Latheesh Sebastian ## **Respondents/State & Complainant:** 1. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 682031. 2. Excise Inspector, Neyyattinkara Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram– 695121 BY P.P.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:** B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A. No.2564 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 5[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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.32 of 2020 of Thirupuram Excise Range, Thirupuram registered alleging offences punishable under Section 8(1) and (2) read with Section 67B of Abkari Act. Petitioners were arrested on 8.4.2020 and they are in custody. - 3.The prosecution case is that the 1[st] petitioner was - found in possession of 1.5 liters of arrack in a scooter B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 3 and 2[nd] petitioner was found in possession of 2.25 liters of arrack in a car. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are custody from 8.4.2020 and the quantity of arrack alleged to be seized is small. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor, even though opposed the bail application, submitted that if this court grant bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 6.After hearing both sides, and considering the small quantity of the contraband seized from the petitioners and the date of arrest of the petitioners, 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** B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 4 **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 this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 5 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 their release. 3. The Superintendent of Jail concerned, immediately after release of the petitioners will B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 6 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 do not violate the terms of the undertaking. 5. The petitioners shall appear 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 B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 7 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 Government with 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 petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with B.A. NO.2564 OF 2020 8 law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** ska