Kerala High Court
Ubaid vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11129 OF 2024
CRIME NO.603/2024 OF KOPPAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD,
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
UBAID
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O MOIDEENKUTTY,
AVUTHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYA ROAD, AMAYUR P.O, KOPPAM
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679 303.
BY ADVS.
K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
BIBIN MATHEW
P.M.MATHEW
AMARNATH R LAL
VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN
SONYMON ANTONY
SANALDEV E.P.
AJMAL V. KARIM
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOPPAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679 309.
ADV
NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:283
B.A No.11129 of 2024
:2:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.11129 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.603
of 2024 of Koppam Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case is that on 06.11.2024
at about 1:35 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in
possession of 3.73 grams of MDMA in a car. Hence it is
alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:283
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted,
the quantity seized only is an intermediate quantity. The
petitioner is in custody from 06.11.2024. It is also
submitted that the allegation against the petitioner, who is
the 2nd accused, is that he was found in possession of only
1.43 grams of MDMA. The Counsel submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court
grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he is involved
in two other NDPS cases, in which the allegation is that the
petitioner was found in possession of small quantity of
drugs.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the
quantity seized from the petitioner in this case is an
intermediate quantity. In such circumstances, the rigor
2025:KER:283
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. It is
true that the petitioner is involved in two other cases. But,
those case are registered alleging that the petitioner was
found in possession of a small quantity drugs. The
petitioner is in custody from 06.11.2024, now about 60
days over. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner on
condition that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence
in future, the Investigating Officer is free to 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 bail
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
2025:KER:283
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 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
2025:KER:283
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
2025:KER:283
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".
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:
2025:KER:283
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
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
2025:KER:283
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
AMR
