Kerala High Court
Bijimol P.R vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
CRIME NO.11/2025 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJIMOL P.R
AGED 22 YEARS
MALAYIL KEEZHU HOUSE PERUMPETTY VILLAGE,
PERUMPETTY.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689592
BY ADVS.
M.S.SARUN
AMALJITH C. ANU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI HRITHWIK CS, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.1605 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.11/2025
of Elamakkara Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 08.01.2025 at
about 10:10 pm, the petitioner and the other accused were
found in possession of 4.9362 gms of MDMA in Room No.101 of
Nandanam Lodge, Edappally North Village. Hence it is alleged
that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2025 and the petitioner is
ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant her bail. The
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public
Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him
from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is
alleged against the petitioner.
6. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is serious. No criminal antecedent is also alleged
against the petitioner. But the fact remains that the quantity of
contraband seized is only intermediate quantity. In such
circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is
not applicable.
7. 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
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
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
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
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution."
(underline supplied)
9. 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"."
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on condition
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the
Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application for
cancellation of bail and if such an application is received, the
jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders in that
application even though this order is passed by this Court.
Therefore, 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. Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as
and 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/her from
2025:KER:10417
BAIL APPL. NO. 1605 OF 2025
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 she is
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which she is suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are 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
JV
