Kerala High Court
Biju vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1652 OF 2025
CRIME NO.65/2025 OF Town North Police Station, Palakkad
PETITIONER/S:
BIJU
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O KOCHUNANU, PULLAMPLAVIL, KADATHOOR,
KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA.,
PIN - 690544
BY ADV LLOYD JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1652 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 11th 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 Crime No.65/2025
of Town North Police Station, Palakkad, registered alleging
offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS
Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, petitioner was
found in possession of 12.150 kgs of Ganja and he was
arrested on 12.01.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5 The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 12.01.2025 and he ready to
abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that, petitioner has got criminal
antecedents and he is involved in four other cases. But, the
Public Prosecutor submitted that all those cases are
registered under the IPC offences.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the quantity
seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. No other
cases under NDPS Act is registered against the petitioner
earlier. The petitioner is in custody from 12.01.2025. Since,
the intermediate quantity is seized, the rigor under Section 37
of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But, I
make it clear that, if the petitioner commits similar offence in
future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate
application before the Jurisdictional Court for the cancellation
of bail and if such an application is filed, Jurisdictional Court is
free to pass appropriate orders in it, eventhough, this order is
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
passe by this Court. With that condition, this bail application
can be allowed.
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:
"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
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
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." (underline supplied)
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
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".
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
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
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.
2025:KER:10935
BAIL APPL. NO.1652 OF 2025
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 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
SSG
