Kerala High Court
Ajayakumar.C vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1793 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:12086
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. 1793 OF 2025
CRIME NO.12/2025 OF BANDADKA EXCISE RANGE, Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
AJAYAKUMAR.C
AGED 44 YEARS
SON OF KANNAN.C, THERUVATH HOUSE, CHUNDAMOTTA
DESOM, KUTTIKOL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
BY ADVS.
A.ARUNKUMAR
S.SHYAM KUMAR
SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN
NESILI NAZEER
RESPONDENT/S:
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
13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1793 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:12086
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No.1793 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 an accused in Crime
No.12/2025 of Bandadka Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 55(i), 13 r/w 63 of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 29.01.2025 at
8.15 pm, the accused was found in possession of 4 litres of
Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The petitioner was arrested on
29.01.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:12086
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 29.01.2025. The petitioner
is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The
Public submitted that the petitioner is involved in yet
another case, in which also the allegation is the same.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The allegation against
the petitioner is that the petitioner was found in possession
of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is available in market.
Whether the offence under Sec. 55(i) is committed is a
matter to be investigated. The petitioner is in custody from
29.01.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after
imposing stringent conditions.
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
2025:KER:12086
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.
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
2025:KER:12086
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)
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"."
2025:KER:12086
10. 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
2025:KER:12086
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
SKS
