Kerala High Court
Ali Hussain vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32789
B.A.No.4981 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. 4981 OF 2025
CRIME NO.148/2025 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ALI HUSSAIN
AGED 30 YEARS
C/O. AIJUDDIN, PLOT IN KH NO.404, GROUND FLOOR,
MAHIPALPUR, MAHIPALPUR SOUTH WEST,
DELHI, PIN - 110037
2
RAHUL ISLAM
AGED 30 YEARS
C/O. GYAS UDDIN, 27, UDKAT, LAHARIGHAT, VTC,
DEWAGURI PO, LAHORIGHAT, SUB DISTRICT -
LAHORIGHAT, DISTRICT - MARIGAON, ASSAM,
PIN - 782127
BY ADVS.
ANAND SANKAR
MUHAMMED NIYAS K.H.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Adv.Renjith George, Sr.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:32789
B.A.No.4981 of 2025
:2:
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
------------------------------------
B.A.No.4981 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.148/2025 of Maradu Police Station registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)B, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act 1985').
The petitioners were arrested on 06.03.2025 and have been in
judicial custody since then.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 06.03.2025 at about
16:45 Hours, the accused were found in possession of 1.618 Kg
of Ganja in their residence situated at Poonithura Village. Thus,
the accused persons allegedly committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
2025:KER:32789
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that petitioner No.1 is having no criminal antecedents. The
petitioners are hailing from Delhi and Assam respectively, and
they are ready to abide by all the conditions that would be
imposed by this Court.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner
No.2 is having criminal antecedent of possession of a small
quantity of a narcotic drug.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the
contraband seized from the petitioners is 1.618 Kg of Ganja.
8. The narcotic drug seized in the instant case is not of
commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigour under S.37 of the
NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. No criminal antecedents
are also alleged against the 1st petitioner. In such
circumstances, I think, the petitioners can be released on bail
after imposing stringent conditions.
2025:KER:32789
9. 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
[(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.
10. 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
2025:KER:32789
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."
11. 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
2025:KER:32789
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."
12. 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 Petitioners shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh
only) each 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 on every Monday between 10.00
am and 11.00 am till the final report is filed or for a
period of three months from the date of his release on
bail, whichever event occurs first.
3. The petitioners shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
2025:KER:32789
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused.
6. If the petitioners violate any of the above
conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach
the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, and the
jurisdictional Court is empowered to cancel the bail in
accordance with law, even though the bail is granted
by this Court.
sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE.
Raj.
2025:KER:32789
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4981/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.148
OF 2025 OF THE MARADU POLICE STATION
