Kerala High Court
Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1865 of 2025
1
2025:KER:11905
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1865 OF 2025
CRIME NO.109/2025 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SURESH
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN, PANTHALANGATTU HOUSE, KUNDANNUR,
THEKKEKKARA DESAM, CHITTANDA VILLAGE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680585
BY ADVS.
K.ARAVIND MENON
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY K.K
SRUTHY N. BHAT
AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1865 of 2025
2
2025:KER:11905
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1865 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.109/2025 of
Wadakkanchery Police Station registered alleging offences
punishable under Sections 9(B)(1)(a), 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian
Explosives Act, 1884 & Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 03.02.2025 at
04.40. p.m., the police got information that explosive substances
were kept illegally in a shed owned by the petitioner. The shed
was searched and huge quantity of explosives and explosive
substances were seized. Hence it is alleged that the accused
committed the above said offences. The petitioner was arrested
on 05.02.2025.
2025:KER:11905
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The contraband
seized is not explosives or explosive substances as defined in the
Explosives Act & Explosive Substances Act. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if
this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail
application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is
involved in yet another case. But the counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that, that case is already disposed of after
paying fine.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the petitioner is in
custody from 05.02.2025 onwards. Indefinite incarceration of the
petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be released on bail
after imposing stringent conditions.
2025:KER:11905
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 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.
2025:KER:11905
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)
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
2025:KER:11905
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 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
2025:KER:11905
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
DM
