[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saji Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2025
2025:KER:98777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 2ND POUSHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14643 OF 2025
O.R NO.151/2025 OF CHITTAR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SAJI CHANDRAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. CHANDRAVILASNAN SAJINIYIL HOUSE,
THKKUMTHODU P.O THANNITHODU, KONNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 691.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
SHRI.KIRAN RAJ R.
SHRI.PRAMOD B.
SHRI.JAYAMOHAN P.K.
SHRI.AKSHAY BABURAJ
SHRI.MIDHUN S. LAL
SHRI.GOUTHAM PADMAKUMAR
SHRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN T. A.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERANAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
PP - ADV.M.C ASHI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:98777
BAIL APPL. NO.14643 OF 2025
2
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in OR No.151
of 2025 of Chittar Excise Range registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 55(a), 55(i) and 67B of the Abkari
Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 10.12.2025, at 9.45
P.M, the accused was found in possession of 19 ltrs. of Indian
Made Foreign Liquor by keeping the same in a Honda Activa
Scooter bearing Registration No.KL-62-B-7973 at the public
road near St.George Church situated near Kodalimukku
Junction at Chittar. 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 allegedly it is Indian Made Foreign Liquor of excess
quantity seized from the possession of the petitioner. Even if
2025:KER:98777
BAIL APPL. NO.14643 OF 2025
the prosecution case is accepted, the offence that would
attract is under Section 13 read with Section 63. The
petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
investigation of the offence is not completed and moreover
there is an allegation of sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor
against the petitioner.
7. It is a well accepted principle that bail is the rule
and 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 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
2025:KER:98777
BAIL APPL. NO.14643 OF 2025
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], 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 flooded with huge number of bail petitions
2025:KER:98777
BAIL APPL. NO.14643 OF 2025
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 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 petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and when
he is required to do so in writing, apart from the
days mentioned above, till the completion of the
2025:KER:98777
BAIL APPL. NO.14643 OF 2025
investigation.
4. 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
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to the investigating officer.
5. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
6. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused.
7. It is made clear that if any of the above
conditions are violated by the petitioner, the
prosecution is at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
JUDGE
SPR
2025:KER:98777
BAIL APPL. NO.14643 OF 2025
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CR.NO.
151/2025 OF CHITTAR EXCISE RANGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER IN CRL.MP
NO.3293/2025 IN CHITTAR EXCISE RANGE
OR.151/2025 DATED 11.12.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.
