Kerala High Court
Satheesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1890 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:12492
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. 1890 OF 2025
CRIME NO.10/2025 OF Kattakkada Excise Range Office,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
SATHEESH KUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN, UTHRADAM VEEDU, KARAKKONAM,
KOVILVILA, MACHEL DESAM, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE,
KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
695571
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 EXCISE INSPECTOR
KATTAKADA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695572
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1890 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:12492
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1890 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 an accused in Crime
No.10/2025 of Kattakkada Excise Range. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused was
found in possession of 14 litres of Indian Made Foreign
Liquor.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
2025:KER:12492
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is
made out. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is in
custody from 30.01.2025. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner is involved in yet another case also with similar
allegation.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the
contraband seized is Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is
available in market. Whether the offence under Sec.55(i) of
the Abkari Act is attracted in the facts and circumstances of
this case, is a matter of investigation. I do not want to make
any observation about the same. But, the petitioner is in
custody from 30.01.2025. The continued detention of the
petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be released on
2025:KER:12492
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
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.
2025:KER:12492
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)
8. 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
2025:KER:12492
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"."
9. 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
2025:KER:12492
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.
The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the
2025:KER:12492
bail, if there is any violation of the above
conditions.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
