Kerala High Court
Daison vs The State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1302/2024 OF Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DAISON
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, PUTHENCHIRAKKARAN HOUSE , OLARIKKARA
DESOM, PULLAZHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680012
BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT
RESPONDENT/STATE & IO:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.216 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th 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.1302/2024 of Chalakkudy Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable
under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (for short, NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 26.11.2024 at
5.25 pm, the accused was found in possession of 14.79 grams of
Methamphetamine. He was arrested from the spot.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the prosecution case is accepted, the quantity seized from
the petitioner is only intermediate quantity. The counsel
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 26.11.2024 and
the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and
submitted that there are criminal antecedents to the petitioner.
But the Public Prosecutor submitted that even though criminal
antecedents are alleged, no case is registered under the NDPS
Act.
6. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is serious and there are some criminal antecedents to
the petitioner. But the fact remains that the quantity of
Methamphetamine seized is only intermediate quantity. In such
circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not
applicable.
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
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
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
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
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
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"."
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody
from 26.11.2024, I think bail can be granted after imposing
stringent conditions. But I make it clear that if the petitioner is
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer in
this case can file appropriate application before the
Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail and if such an application
is received, the Jurisdictional Court is free to pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law, even though this order is passed
by this Court.
Therefore, 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/her from
2025:KER:1649
BAIL APPL. NO. 216 OF 2025
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. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays
at 10 am, till final report is filed.
6. 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
jv
