Kerala High Court
Anoop. K vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
CRIME NO.14/2025 OF Nadapuram Excise Range Office
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.121 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NADAPURAM
PETITIONER/accused:
ANOOP. K
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O ANANDAN, MAVULLAPARAMBU HOUSE, KUTTIADY
VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673508
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/State:
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
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.1952 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th 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.14/2025
of Nadapuram Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section
55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused was
found in possession of 2.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
The petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 03.02.2025 and he is ready to
abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
2025:KER:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
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 the market.
The petitioner is in custody from 03.02.2025. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the
detention period, I think the petitioner can be released on bail.
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
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
2025:KER:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
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 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:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
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/her 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. The prosecution and the victim are
2025:KER:12336
BAIL APPL. NO. 1952 OF 2025
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
