Kerala High Court
Mohammed Hashim T.K vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 1ST MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
CRIME NO.78/2024 OF Manjeri Excise Range Office, Malappuram
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED HASHIM T.K.
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O AHAMEDKUTTY, THUNDUPARAKKAL HOUSE,
CHETTIYIL, KARULAI VILLAGE, NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
BY ADVS.
C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
AADIL NAZARUDEEN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI HRITHWIK C.S, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.512 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.78/2024
of Manjeri Excise Range, Malappuram. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16/12/24 at
4.45 PM, accused Nos.1 and 2 found in possession of 10.39
grams of Methamphetamine in a Toyota Innova Car and thus
committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on
16.12.2024.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
2025:KER:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
the quantity seized from the petitioner is only intermediate
quantity. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is
ready to abide any conditions if this Court release him on bail.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the
Public Prosecutor submitted that the quantity seized is
intermediate quantity and no criminal antecedent is alleged as
per the report received by him.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the contraband
seized is only intermediate quantity. If that is the case, the
rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. There
is no criminal antecedent alleged against the petitioner. The
petitioner is in custody from 16.12.2024.
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:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 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
2025:KER:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
of our 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 facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on condition
2025:KER:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the
Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application for
cancellation of bail and if such an application is received, the
jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders in that
application 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 disclosing such facts to the
2025:KER:4305
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2025
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 is 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
