Bail is typically granted unless exceptional circumstances exist; identity issues and COVID-19 considerations may influence bail decisions.

O R D E R

Dated this the 9th day of July 2020 This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code .

2. Second accused in O.R.No.3/2019 of Mannamangalam Forest Station, Thrissur District, is the petitioner in this bail application. The above case is registered against the petitioner and two others alleging the offences punishable under Sections 9 , 39(1)(b)(d), 44(1)(v), 57 and 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

3. The prosecution case is that the 2nd accused killed a wild pig on 18.11.2019 after trespassing into the forest land and the 1st and the 3rd accused purchased the meat.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he filed a bail application before the Sessions Court, Thrissur as Crl.M.C. No.2134/2019. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said bail application because there is no documents to show that the petitioner Jayaprakash is the Prakasan, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the case. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed Crl.M.C No.25/2020 apprehending arrest before the same court. That application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, because at that time, the prosecution submitted that the petitioner is an accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is not connected with the case. Originally, in the mahazar the 2nd accused is arrayed as one Prakasan. Since the petitioner filed the bail application, he was implicated by the forest officials. He submitted that he has no connection with the forest offences. He is not involved in any case.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he hunted the animal and distributed the meat to the 1st and 3rd accused. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that it is a serious case in which 95 Kgs of meat of a wild animal is involved.

7. It is an admitted case that the 3rd accused in the above crime approached this Court in an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C and this Court granted anticipatory bail as per order dated

3.2.2020 in B.A No.163/2020.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is a dispute regarding the identity of the 2nd accused. According to him, his name is Jayaprakash and in the mahazar the name of the 2nd accused is mentioned as Prakasan. According to the counsel simply because he filed the bail application before the Sessions Court apprehending arrest, his name is implicated in this case.

He has no connection with the forest offences.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, it is not reported that the petitioner is involved in any other case. But the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in that area several forest offences are registered and the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is also involved in the case. These are the matters to be investigated by the forest officials. The question of identity is also to be decided after investigation of the case. For that purpose there can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the forest officials. Since one of the accused is already released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, it is not proper on my part to deny bail to the petitioner.

10. 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.

11. 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), a