Kerala High Court
Faris vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:31695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5375 OF 2025
CRIME NO.312/2025 OF Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.65 OF
2025 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
1 FARIS
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O FAISAL, FIROZ MANZIL HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR P O,
AYMANAN VILLAGE, PULINCHUVADU BHAGAM, KOTTAYAM
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 686017
2 JIBIN CHACKO
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O CHERIAN JOSEPH, PALLIKIZHAKETHIL HOUSE,
KUMARANALLOOR P.O, THOOTHOOTTY BHAGAM,
PERUMBAIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686016
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
DIPA V.
AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5375 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.312/2025 of Gandhinagar Police Station, registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners
were found in possession of 1.760 kilograms of dried ganja.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are in custody from
22.02.2025. Petitioners are ready to abide by any
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
conditions, if this Court grants them bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But, he conceded that, as per the report
received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal
antecedents is alleged against the petitioners.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that
allegation against the petitioners are serious. But, the
quantity seized is only intermediate quantity. Hence, the
rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable.
No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners.
The petitioner is in custody from 22.02.2025. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can
be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But,
I make it clear that, if the petitioners are involved in similar
offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file
appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to
cancel the bail, and if such an application is filed the
Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders, even
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
though this bail order is passed by this Court.
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. 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
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
Constitution." (underline supplied)
10. 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
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
Courts should recognize the principle that
"bail is rule and jail is exception".
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. Petitioners 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 petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as
and when required. The petitioners 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
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which they are
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which they are 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 petitioners, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though the bail is
2025:KER:31695
BAIL APPL. NO.5375 OF 2025
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
SSG
