Ajesh vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 8236 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8236 Ker
Judgement Date : 22 April, 2025

Kerala High Court

Ajesh vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025

                                                     2025:KER:32823
BAIL APPL. NO. 5624 OF 2025
                                  1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
 TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 5624 OF 2025
 CRIME NO.165/2025 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2025 IN Bail
Appl. NO.4393 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:

         AJESH
         AGED 52 YEARS
         S/O. JOSEPH, SAUYAMKUZHIL HOUSE, KOYINAD BHAGAM,
         KANAYAMKAVAYAL NOW RESIDING AT SAURYAMKUZHIYIL
         HOUSE, THENPUZHA EAST, BHAGAM, ENTHAYAR PO,
         IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685532

         BY ADVS.
         BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
         THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
         BASIL MATHEW

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031


         ADV.SANGEETH RAJ.N.R., P.P.


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2025:KER:32823
BAIL APPL. NO. 5624 OF 2025
                                  2




                            ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioner herein is the accused in Crime

No.165/2025 of Peruvanthanam Police Station registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the

Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 11.03.2025 at

about 03:00 p.m., while Sub Inspector and party of

Peruvanthanam Police Station were conducting L/O patrolling,

they found the accused by the side of a club at Kanayankavayal

Junction by holding 6.5 Litres of Indian made Foreign Liquor in a

big shopper. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above

offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot and in

fact, he surrendered before the police as directed by this Court 2025:KER:32823 BAIL APPL. NO. 5624 OF 2025

as per Annexure-2 order dated 04.04.2025. He is ready to co-

operate with the investigation.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in

the event of granting bail to the petitioner, strict conditions may

be incorporated with the order.

7. 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

[(2020) 13 SCC 791] 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.

8. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of

India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

thus:

"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 2025:KER:32823 BAIL APPL. NO. 5624 OF 2025

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."

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of

Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed thus:

"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 2025:KER:32823 BAIL APPL. NO. 5624 OF 2025

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"."

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above

decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following

directions:

1. The 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.