BA.No.777/2020                        1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

                      Bail Appl..No.777 OF 2020

    CRIME NO.584/2019 OF Pudukkad Police Station , Thrissur


PETITIONER:

               MUTHUVEL E.
               AGED 27 YEARS
               S/O. ELUMALAI, NO.5, MARIYAMMANKOIL STREET,
               MUTTIYUR, TINDIVANA T. K.,
               VILLUPURAM DISTRICT - 604001,
               TAMIL NADU.

               BY ADV. SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
               ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

      2        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT.



               SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION        ON
14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 BA.No.777/2020                       2



                              O R D E R

Dated this the 14th day of August 2020 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

2. Petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime No.584/2019 of Pudukkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 269, 277 and 278 r/w 34 IPC and also under Sections 24 and 43 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is the driver of a mini lorry. On 7.9.2019 at about 5 am, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukkad Police Station along with his team was conducting patrol duty through Chalakkudy-Mannuthy NH

544. At that time they saw a mini tanker lorry parked on the western side of the road and pumping some effluents into the stream which is near the road. They saw this by using the head light of the vehicle. When the police party approached, two persons ran away from the place. On inspection it is found that the effluents which emanated is having a foul smell and it is realized that the same was latrine waste. Hence the above case is registered.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable. The counsel also submitted that in the light of Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the offences under Sections 24 and 43 of the said Act cannot be registered against the petitioner by the police officer. Only an authorised person can lodge the complaint.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious.

7. After hearing both sides, I am forced to allow this bail application for a simple reason that the offence alleged against the petitioner are bailable offence. I am aware that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. But the offences alleged against the petitioner are only under Sections 269, 277 and 278 IPC. All these sections are bailable. As far as the offence under Sections 24 and 43 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, there is a bar under Section 49 of the said Act in initiating the complaint by the police. In such circumstances, this bail application can be BA.No.777/2020 4 allowed on stringent conditions.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. If any case is registered against the petitioner with the same allegation, the investigating officer can approach the court concerned for cancellation of bail.

6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by BA.No.777/2020 6 the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ab