Kerala High Court
Sreeju. V vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
CRIME NO.35/2025 OF Thamarassery Excise Range Office
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.3378 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
SREEJU. V
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O ANDIKUTTY, VEYATTUMMAL HOUSE, NEDIYANAD,
NARIKKUNI, THAMARASSERY, PIN - 673585
BY ADVS. NAVANEETH.N.NATH
ABHIRAMI S.
ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.4997 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.35/2025
of Thamarassery Excise Range. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under
Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 26.02.2025 at
06:45 PM, the Excise Circle Inspector and party conducted a
search in a building bearing No.IV/194, 2006-07 situated in
Narikkuni Village, Kozhikode, owned by the mother of the
petitioner. It is alleged that 29.5 litres of wash was seized from
the building. Hence it is alleged that the accused is also
involved.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS. This Court was
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner considering the
seriousness of the case. At that stage, the counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender
before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly as per order dated
17.03.2025 in BA No.3378/2025, this Court directed the
petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer.
Accordingly the petitioner surrender before the Investigating
Officer on 27.03.2025. The petitioner is in custody from that
day onwards. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after
imposing stringent conditions.
6. 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.
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
7. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of
India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we
must mention here that the Special Court and
the High Court did not consider the material in
the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus
was more on the activities of PFI, and
therefore, the appellant's case could not be
properly appreciated. When a case is made out
for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have
any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations
of the prosecution may be very serious. But,
the duty of the Courts is to consider the case
for grant of bail in accordance with the law.
"Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a
settled law. Even in a case like the present
case where there are stringent conditions for
the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the
same rule holds good with only modification
that the bail can be granted if the conditions in
the statute are satisfied. The rule also means
that once a case is made out for the grant of
bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If
the Courts start denying bail in deserving
cases, it will be a violation of the rights
guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution."
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
(underline supplied)
8. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that:
"53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the High
Courts have forgotten a very well - settled
principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment. From our experience, we can say
that it appears that the trial courts and the High
Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant
of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in
breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in
straight forward open and shut cases, this Court
is flooded with huge number of bail petitions
thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high
time that the trial courts and the High Courts
should recognize the principle that "bail is rule
and jail is exception"."
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
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing 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.
2. 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/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
2025:KER:30776
BAIL APPL. NO. 4997 OF 2025
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which \he is suspected.
5. The observations and findings in this order
is only for the purpose of deciding this bail
application. The principle laid down by this
Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable
in this case also.
6. 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. The prosecution and the victim are
at liberty to approach the jurisdictional
court to cancel the bail, if there is any
violation of the above conditions.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
jv
