Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shanavas P.M vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 5981 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5981 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 August, 2025

Kerala High Court

Shanavas P.M vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2025

Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
                                                         2025:KER:64212
CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

                                     1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

   SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 1ST BHADRA, 1947

                          CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

         CRIME NO.25/2025 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

         AGAINST   THE    ORDER/JUDGMENT    DATED   25.07.2025   IN   CRMC

NO.1092 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD

PETITIONER:

             SHANAVAS P.M
             AGED 26 YEARS
             S/O ABBAS, MASTHIKUNDU HOUSE,
             MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE DISTRICT.,
             PIN - 671542


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
             SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
             SMT.SAIPOOJA
             SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
             SMT.R.GAYATHRI
             SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
             SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
             SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE




RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
                                                  2025:KER:64212
CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

                                  2


     2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
            PIN - 671543

            BY AJITH MURALI, PP


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2025:KER:64212
CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

                                   3




                              ORDER

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 25 of 2025

registered at the Adhur Police Station for offences under

Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act.

2. The crime is registered on the allegation that,

on 13.01.2025, at about 05:30 PM, at a place called

Manchakkal, the petitioner, along with other accused, was found

travelling in a vehicle carrying 99.54 grams of MDMA. The

petitioner was arrested on 13.01.2025 and granted bail as per

Annexure 1 order dated 25.07.2025, subject to conditions. This

Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by condition Nos. 1 and 2 in Annexure

1 order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the first condition, requiring one of the sureties to be the

parents, siblings, or close relatives of the accused is unjust and

has resulted in the petitioner languishing in jail in spite of being

granted bail. It is submitted that none of the close relatives are

willing to stand surety for the petitioner, whereas his friends 2025:KER:64212 CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

have expressed readiness. As far as the 2 nd condition is

concerned, it is contended that the direction to furnish cash

security of Rs.20,000/- militates against the settled proposition

of law that, onerous conditions, which have the effect of denying

bail cannot be imposed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that,

commercial quantity of MDMA having been recovered from the

petitioner's possession, the court below is justified in imposing

stringent conditions.

5. No doubt, the offences alleged against the

petitioner are very serious in nature. Even if so, the question is

whether, having decided to grant bail, the court below could

have imposed conditions which are impossible of performance.

This Court in Karthika Pradeep v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC

OnLine 1915], has held that conditions requiring one surety to

be a close relative of the accused, creates a geographical

discrimination in the bail matters and cannot therefore be

imposed. Likewise, calling upon an accused in custody to

furnish cash security is also unjust, as it can result in the

accused continuing in jail, like in the instant case. Here, the 2025:KER:64212 CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

decision of the Apex Court in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant

of Bail v. [2023 (2) KHC 84] holding that if the accused is

unable to execute bail bond within one month of grant of bail,

the stringent conditions which prevented such execution should

be modified, applies on all fours.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed

by deleting condition No.2 and modifying condition No.1 in

Annexure 1 order as under;

"1. They shall execute 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 court."

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE SPV 2025:KER:64212 CRL.MC NO. 7038 OF 2025

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 IN CRL.M.C NO.1092/2025 PASSED BY HONOURABLE SESSION'S COURT, KASARAGOD

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter