Manoharan B. K vs The Station House Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 3797 Ker

Kerala High Court

Manoharan B. K vs The Station House Officer on 7 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                             2025:KER:9984
          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. 1500 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.603/2024 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

  AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2024 IN CRMP NO.138 OF

   2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT

                 CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3:

    1     MANOHARAN B. K
          AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KALAVATHI, KUNTANGARADKA
          HOUSE, KUMBLA POST, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD,
          PIN - 671 321.

    2     SELWARAJ R
          AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. RAMASWAMI,
          MATHAJI QUARTERS, NEAR I. H. R. D. COLLEGE,
          KUNDANGARADUKA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD,
          PIN - 671 321.

          BY ADV
          ANN SUSAN GEORGE


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

    1     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD,
          PIN - 671 321.

    2     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
                                                2025:KER:9984
B.A No.1500 of 2025
                             2
           BY ADV
           NOUSHAD K.A, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:9984
B.A No.1500 of 2025
                                  3


                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.1500 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
        Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025


                             ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the 2nd and 3rd accused in

Crime No.603 of 2024 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasargod.

The above case is registered against the petitioners and

another alleging offences punishable under Sections

22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985(for short 'NDPS Act').

3. The prosecution case is that the

petitioners were found in possession of 2.220 grams of

MDMA. The petitioners were in custody from 13.10.2024.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

Public Prosecutor.

2025:KER:9984

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners are in custody from

13.10.2024. The counsel submitted that the petitioners

are ready to abide any condition, if this Court grants

them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as

per the report received by him, no NDPS cases are

registered against the petitioners earlier.

7. This Court considered the contention of

the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the

quantity seized from the petitioners is intermediate

quantity. Hence, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS

Act is not applicable. The petitioners are in custody from

13.10.2024. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail

after imposing stringent conditions. But, I make it clear

that if the petitioners are involved in similar offence in 2025:KER:9984

future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate

application before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the

bail, and if such an application is filed the Jurisdictional

Court can pass appropriate orders, even though this bail

order is passed by this Court.

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:9984

"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 2025:KER:9984

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."

(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 2025:KER:9984

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".

8. 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. Petitioners 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 2025:KER:9984

the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court.

2. The petitioners shall appear before

the Investigating Officer for

interrogation as and when required. The

petitioners 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. Petitioners shall not leave India

without permission of the jurisdictional

Court.

4. Petitioners shall not commit an

offence similar to the offence of which

they are accused, or suspected, of the 2025:KER:9984

commission of which they are

suspected.

5. If any of the above conditions are

violated by the petitioners, 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 AMR