Kerala High Court
Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:30883
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. 5080 OF 2025
CRIME NO.21/2025 OF MALA EXCISE RANGE, THRISSUR
IN CR NO.21 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
RAJESH
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, PARIPPIL HOUSE,
PORUMBANKUNNU DESOM, PUTHANCHIRA VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 682.
BY ADVS.
N.L.BITTO
MITHUL T ANTO
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30883
B.A No.5080 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5080 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 9th 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.21 of
2025 of Mala Excise Range, Thrissur. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
was found in possession of 2.300 liters of Indian Made
Foregin Liquor.
4. Heard.
5. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the
report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged
2025:KER:30883
against the petitioner.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from
01.04.2024. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the
petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he
was found in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor,
which is available in market. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
7. 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:30883
8. 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,
2025:KER:30883
it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed
under Art.21 of our Constitution." (underline
supplied)
9. 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"."
2025:KER:30883
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. 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
2025:KER:30883
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 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:KER:30883
[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
AMR
