Kerala High Court
Eldho Eliyas vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:31908
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. 5248 OF 2025
CRIME NO.180/2025 OF Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ELDHO ELIYAS
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ELIYAS, MOOLAN HOUSE, PRIYA
NAGAR, NAYATHOD P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,
PIN - 683 572.
BY ADVS.
EBIN V.Y.
SADIK ISMAYIL
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, IN KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670 582.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31908
B.A No.5248 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5248 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 11th 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.180 of
2025 of Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a)
of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. The prosecution case is that on 03.03.2025 at
6:30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of a
country made single barrel gun and 13 cartridges
covered in a blanket and placed on the bed of a bedroom
of his house. Hence it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence.
2025:KER:31908
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 03.03.2025. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide
any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail
application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as
per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is
alleged against the petitioner.
7. The maximum punishment that can be
imposed for the offence alleged is below 7 years. The
petitioner is in custody from 03.03.2025. No criminal
antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
2025:KER:31908
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 appellant's case could not be
properly appreciated. When a case is made
out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not
2025:KER:31908
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." (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
2025:KER:31908
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"."
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
2025:KER:31908
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.
2025:KER:31908
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 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
2025:KER:31908
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
