Kerala High Court
Mohammed Shameer.B.A vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32809
B.A.No.5400 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. 5400 OF 2025
CRIME NO.179/2025 OF Kasaragod Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2025 IN CRMC
NO.298 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED SHAMEER.B.A
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, R/AT BISMILLA MANZIL, RAILWAY
STATION ROAD, UPPALA, MANGALPADY VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671324
BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121
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:32809
B.A.No.5400 of 2025
:2:
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
------------------------------------
B.A.No.5400 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 petitioner is the accused in Crime No.179/2025
of Kasaragod Police Station registered for the offences
punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act 1985'). The
petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2025 and has been in judicial
custody since then.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 17.02.2025 at about
13:25 Hours, at Karanthakkad in Kasaragod District, the accused
was found in possession of 25.90 grams of MDMA. Thus, the
accused persons allegedly committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
2025:KER:32809
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2025 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. The learned counsel further
submitted that no criminal antecedents are reported against the
petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that after the
receipt of lab report the penal provision is altered to Section
22(b) of NDPS at the place of 22(c) originally registered.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the contraband
seized from the petitioners is the following:
25.90 grams of MDMA.
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
2025:KER:32809
are also alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in
custody for about 90 days. In such circumstances, I think, the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent
conditions.
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,
2025:KER:32809
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."
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
2025:KER:32809
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."
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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. One of the sureties shall be either the parents or
the near relative of the petitioner, if the parents are
not available.
3. The petitioner shall co - operate with the
2025:KER:32809
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 such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused.
6. If the petitioner violates 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:32809
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5400/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC.
NO.298/2025 OF THE SESSIONS COURT,
KASARAGOD DATED 3/03/2025
