Kerala High Court
Praven K Dasan vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.1079 of 2025
1
2025:KER:6835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1079 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1116/2024 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S):
PRAVEN K DASAN
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.DASAN, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, MATTATHUEKUNNU
P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 684
BY ADV P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.1079 of 2025
2
2025:KER:6835
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.1079 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.1116/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offence punishable under Section 22(b)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
(NDPS) Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case is that, on
16.12.2024 at about 06.15 PM, the accused was
2025:KER:6835
found in possession of 9.59 gms of MDMA.
Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offence. The petitioner was arrested on
16.12.2024.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, even if the prosecution case is accepted, the
contraband seized is intermediate quantity.
Moreover, there is no criminal antecedents also
against the petitioner. The counsel also submitted
that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition
imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him
bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted
that, no criminal antecedents is alleged against
2025:KER:6835
the petitioner as per the report received by him
from the Investigating Officer.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
Admittedly, the contraband seized from the
petitioner is an intermediate quantity. If that be
the case, the regour under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is not applicable. The petitioner is in
custody from 16.12.2024. No criminal
antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think, bail can be granted to the petitioner
on stringent conditions. But, I make it clear that,
if the petitioner is involved in any similar offence
in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file an
application before the jurisdictional court to
cancel the bail and if, such an application is filed,
2025:KER:6835
the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate
orders in it, in accordance with law, even though
this 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 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
2025:KER:6835
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
2025:KER:6835
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 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"."
2025:KER:6835
Considering the dictum laid down in the
above decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
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
2025:KER:6835
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:6835
bail in accordance with 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 condition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
