Kerala High Court
Haridas vs State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.554 of 2025
1
2025:KER:3955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 554 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S)/SOLE ACCUSED:
HARIDAS
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KUNJUNNI, NECHOOR, MALLANKUNNU, TRUR-I
VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 544
BY ADV. V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER, GP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.554 of 2025
2
2025:KER:3955
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.554 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 20th 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.87 of 2024 of
Alathur Excise Range Office, Palakkad registered alleging offences
punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 27.05.2024 at about
12.30 pm, the petitioner was found in possession of 20 litres of
illicit arrack. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the
aforesaid offences. The petitioner surrendered before the
Investigating Officer as ordered by this Court as per Annexure-1
order.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
2025:KER:3955
petitioner surrendered on 31.12.2024. The counsel submitted
that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court
grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the instructions
received by him, no criminal antecedents are alleged against the
petitioner. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the final
report is already filed.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is serious. But no criminal
antecedents are alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is
in custody from 31.12.2024. The final report is already filed. In
such circumstances, I think the petitioner 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
2025:KER:3955
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 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
2025:KER:3955
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 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"."
11. 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
2025:KER:3955
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 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
2025:KER:3955
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
DM
