Kerala High Court
Jofin Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1621 OF 2025
CRIME NO.10/2025 OF Mananthavady Excise Range Office, Wayanad
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOFIN JOSEPH
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, OTTAPINAL HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670731
BY ADVS.
S.ABHILASH VISHNU
KRISHNAPRIYA SUNIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 1621/2025
-2-
2025:KER:10144
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
===============================
B.A.No. 1621 of 2025
================================
Dated this the 7 th day of February, 2025
O R D E R
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Occurrence Report
No.10/2025 of the Excise Range Office, Mananthavady. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Section 55(i) and 10 of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused was
found in possession of 12 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
The petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the
2025:KER:10144
petitioner is in custody from 29.01.2025. It is also submitted that
the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions if this Court
grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail
Application. The Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is
involved in two other cases with similar allegations.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation
against the petitioner is serious, and he has criminal antecedents.
But the petitioner is in custody from 29.01.2025. The allegation
against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 12
liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is available in the
market. Whether the petitioner committed offence under Section
55(i) of the Abkari Act is the matter to be investigated and to be
decided by the Jurisdictional Court if 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
2025:KER:10144
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:
"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 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
2025:KER:10144
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. 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".
11. 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
2025:KER:10144
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioner/s 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. If any of the above conditions are
2025:KER:10144
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court
can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
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
JS
2025:KER:10144
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1621/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure - A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE
REPORT NO. 10/2025 OF EXCISE RANGE,
MANANTHAVADY, DATED 30.01.2025
