Kerala High Court
Fayis M vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:16934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/9TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1812 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1542/2021 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
SC NO.1136 OF 2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
FAYIS M.
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN,MOOTHANAYIL HOUSE,
KUNNAPULLI POST OFFICE,
PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM,KERALA.,
PIN - 679 322.
BY ADVS.
SHIBIN K.F.
SEBY JOSEPH
KIRAN MURALI
ANEENA ROY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION,THRISSUR,KERALA,
PIN - 680 001.
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
2
BY ADV.
HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2573/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/9TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2573 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1542/2021 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 IN Bail Appl. NO.3416
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
VISHNU SATHEESH
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SATHEESH,MALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KANNAMKULANGARA POST OFFICE,THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE., PIN - 682 007.
BY ADVS.
SHIBIN K.F.
KIRAN MURALI
ANEENA ROY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR, KERALA., PIN - 680 001.
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
4
BY ADV.
HRITHWIK C.S, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1812/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1812 and 2573of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected,
and therefore I am disposing these cases by a common
order.
2. The petitioner in B.A No.1812/2025 is the
3rd accused and the petitioner in B.A No.2573/2025 is the
4th accused in Crime No.1542/2021 of Town East Police
Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against
the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable
under Sections 22(c) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that on
07.08.2021, the 1st accused was found in possession of
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
22gm of MDMA Tablets and 50gm of MDMA crystals, near
Kokkala pound, Thrissur. The allegation against the
petitioners is that the they participated in the conspiracy.
Hence it is alleged that the accused committed that
offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioner in B.A No.1812/2025 is in
custody from 02.05.2023 and the petitioner in B.A
No.2573/2025 is in custody from 21.06.2023. The counsel
submitted that even though the quantity seized is
commercial quantity, the petitioners are entitled to the
benefit of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Ankur
Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live
Law (SC) 416], Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State
of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022]
and Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023].
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody
for more that one year and four months. In the light of
the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ankur
Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live
Law (SC) 416], Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State
of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022]
and Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West
Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023] and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the rigour
under Section 37 of NDPS Act can be relaxed in this case.
The trial in the above case is started and thereafter
further investigation is ordered. The further investigation
is stayed by this Court. Therefore, there is no chance to
start the trial, till the case pending before this Court is
disposed of. In such circumstances, I am of the
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
considered opinion that the petitioners can be released
on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
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
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
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
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
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
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
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".
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. Petitioners shall be released on bail
on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
2. The petitioners shall appear before
the Investigating Officer for
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
interrogation as and when required. The
petitioners 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. Petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which
they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which they are
suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioners, the
2025:KER:16934
B.A Nos.1812 and 2573 of 2025
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
AMR
