Kerala High Court
Prajith R vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:4495
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. 638 OF 2025
CRIME NO.603/2024 OF KOPPAM POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD, Palakkad
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
PRAJITH R
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, VALLIKKAD,
KAZHANI,KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678543
BY ADVS.
REGHU SREEDHARAN
JISSMON A KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:283
B.A No.638 of 2025
:2:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------------
B.A.No.638 of 2025
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
2023.
2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime
No.603 of 2024 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad.
The above case is registered against the petitioner
and others 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. As per the confession statement of accused
2025:KER:283
Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner herein was also
incorporated as an accused in the above crime.
Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the
offence.
4. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and
the Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that even if the entire allegations are
accepted, the quantity seized is only an
intermediate quantity. The petitioner is in custody
from 26.11.2024. Counsel also submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this
Court grants him bail. Public Prosecutor opposed
the bail application.
6. This Court considered the
contentions of the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. Admittedly the quantity of the
contraband seized is an intermediate quantity. In
such circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of
2025:KER:283
the NDPS Act is not applicable. The petitioner is in
custody from 26.11.2024. 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 in it,
even though this bail order is passed by this Court.
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 accused
2025:KER:283
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
2025:KER:283
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 Constitution." (underline
supplied)
2025:KER:283
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
2025:KER:283
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. 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-
2025:KER:283
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
2025:KER:283
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
nvj
