Kerala High Court
Nishil vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32782
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. 5368 OF 2025
CRIME NO.255/2025 OF VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2025 IN CRMC NO.292 OF 2025 OF
DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 07.03.2025 IN CMP NO.950 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NISHIL
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O VASU, KONTHODIYIL HOUSE, KATTIPPARUTHI,
VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676552
BY ADVS.
JAMSHEED HAFIZ
T.S.SREEKUTTY
FATHIMA NASREEN S.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
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:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5368 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:32782
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
---------------------------------------------
B.A. No.5368 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the accused in Crime
No.255/2025 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 55 (a) &
55 (i) of Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 02.03.2025, at
about 1.45 p.m., by the side of the road at Kattiparuthi, near
Kattattiyoor Siva Temple, the accused was found in possession
of 4 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the purpose of
intended sale. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:32782
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2025, and since then
he has been in judicial custody. Investigation of the offence is
completed, and hence further detention of the petitioner in
judicial custody is unnecessary.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the Final
Report has been filed in the matter. However, the petitioner is
having two criminal antecedents of similar nature.
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
2025:KER:32782
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, 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
2025:KER:32782
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."
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.
2. 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
2025:KER:32782
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.
3. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused.
5. It is made clear that if any of the above
conditions are violated by the petitioner, the
prosecution and the victim are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation
of bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.,
JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:32782
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5368/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P
NO.950/2024 IN CRIME NO. 255/2025
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, I, TIRUR DATED
07.03.2025
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C
NO.253/2025 IN CRIME NO. 255/2025
BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI,
MANJERI DATED 19.03.2025
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C
NO.292/2025 IN CRIME NO. 255/2025
BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI,
MANJERI DATED 02.04.2025
