Kerala High Court
Vishnujith M.V vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:9071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1455 OF 2025
CRIME NO.41/2024 OF Njarakkel Excise Range Office, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
VISHNUJITH M.V
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O VIMALJITH, MARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAPPU, MALIPPURAM
P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682511
BY ADVS.
M.V.VIPINDAS
N.P.SILPA
DAISON KOMATH
DIASTUS KOMATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN
- 682031
2 THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NARAKKAL, NARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682505
BY ADV.
G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1455 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the accused in O.R No.41/2024 of
Njarakkal Excise Range, registered alleging offence
punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 21.11.2024
at about 06:30pm., the accused was found in possession of
4641 mg of MDMA and thus, committed the offence under
Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Now, it is submitted that, the
Analyst Report came and the contraband seized is
methamphetamine.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 21.11.2024. The counsel
submitted that, petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions,
if this Court grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that there are criminal antecedents
to the petitioner and three other cases registered against the
petitioner. But Public Prosecutor submitted that those cases
are not registered under the NDPS Act.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the
contraband seized is intermediate quantity. If that is the case,
the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS is not applicable.
Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 21.11.2024. No
criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner as far
as the NDPS cases are concerned. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be
released on bail on condition that, if the petitioner involved in
similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer can file
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to
cancel the bail and if such an application is filed, the
Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders in it,
eventhough, this order is passed by this Court. There can be a
further direction to the petitioner to appear before the
investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10:00am., till the final
report is filed.
8. 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 [2019 (16) SCALE 870], 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.
9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of
India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that:
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
"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 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
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
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." (underline supplied)
10. 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.
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
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".
Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision 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.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 for interrogation as and
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
when required. 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 from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which he is suspected.
5. Petitioner shall appear before the
investigating Officer on all Mondays at
10:00am., till the final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
2025:KER:9071
BAIL APPL. NO.1455 OF 2025
though the bail is granted by this Court. The
prosecution and the victim are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional court to cancel
the bail, if there is any violation of the above
conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
