Kerala High Court
Muhammed Haris K.P vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1797 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:11966
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. 1797 OF 2025
CRIME NO.4/2025 OF THRITHALA EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
Palakkad
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED HARIS K.P
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KANNEERPALLIYALIL HOUSE,
KULAKKULLUR, MULAYANKAVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679337
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1797 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:11966
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1797 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.4 of
2025 of Thrithala Excise Range . The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 22(b), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.01.2025
the accused persons were found in possession 4.459 grams of
methamphetamine.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:11966
5. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 15.01.2025. The counsel for
the petitioner submitted that co-accused were already
released on bail, as per the order dated 10.02.2025 in BA
No.1629/2025.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the
instructions received by him from the Investigating Officer, no
criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that allegation
against the petitioner is serious, but the contraband seized is
intermediate quantity. Hence the rigour under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act is not attracted. The petitioner is in custody
from 15.01.2025. No criminal antecedents are alleged against
the petitioner. In such circumstances, I think the petitioner
can be released on bail. But I make it clear that, if the
petitioner involved in similar offence in future the
2025:KER:11966
Investigating Officer can 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 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:
"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
2025:KER:11966
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 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
2025:KER:11966
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
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2025:KER:11966
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 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.
2025:KER:11966
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
SKS
2025:KER:11966
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1797/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CRIME AND
OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CRIME NO.4/2025 OF
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT DATED 15.01.2025
Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04.02.2025 IN CRL.MC.NO.653/2025 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD.
