Gantla Varaha Murthy vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 4975 Ker

Kerala High Court

Gantla Varaha Murthy vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. NO. 9865 OF 2024    1

                                               2025:KER:20485
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                  BAIL APPL. NO. 9865 OF 2024

   CRIME NO.40/2022 OF Moovattupuzha Excise Range Office,

                           Ernakulam

     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.295 OF 2023

OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

, NORTH PARAVUR

PETITIONER/S:

          GANTLA VARAHA MURTHY,
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O. GANTLA RAJABABU,D.NO 9/21, BAYALAPUDI GRAMAM,
          JAITHAVARAM P.O.,CHEEDIKADA MANDALAM,
          VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN - 531028


          BY ADVS.
          R.ANIL
          SUJESH MENON V.B.
          THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
          RESSIL LONAN
          MAHESH BHANU S.
          JOEL GEORGE KAMPIYIL
          ANANTH KRISHNA K.S.
          B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)




RESPONDENT/S:

          STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
 BAIL APPL. NO. 9865 OF 2024        2

                                                          2025:KER:20485

OTHER PRESENT:

             PP- G SUDHEER


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025,     THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 9865 OF 2024    3

                                                     2025:KER:20485
                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------
                      B.A.No. 9865 of 2024
                     -------------------------------
             Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025

                            ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.40/2022 of Excise Range Office, Muvattupuzha. The above

case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (C), 25, 27A, 29 and 60(3)

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 10.09.2022

at about 7.15 a.m., the accused 1 to 4 were found transporting

79.200 kgs. Of ganja in a lorry. The accused 1 to 4 confessed

that the contraband article was supplied to them by the 5 th

accused, who in turn had procured it from the 7 th accused.

Thus the accused committed the above offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

2025:KER:20485 all other accused except the petitioner are released on bail.

The learned counsel submitted that the 6 th accused is released

on bail as per Annexure A7 after 170 days. The petitioner is in

custody from 06.11.2024.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

allegation against the petitioner is that they were found in

possession of commercial quantity of ganja.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

8. This Court perused Annexure A7. The 5 th

accused is already released on bail as per Annexure A7. It

would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of

Annexure A7, which reads thus:para 6 and 7 and 8.

"6. It is true that under Sec.37 of the Act this Court would have to find reasonable grounds to come to a conclusion that the accused have not committed the offence and it is also not likely to commit any offence if he is enlarged on bail.

7. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 21.7.2023. The accused 1 to 4 have been enlarged on bail , who were found in possession of the contraband article. It is on the basis of their confession that the petitioner has been

2025:KER:20485 implicated as an accused in the crime. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been filed. The matter is now pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court.

8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that accused 1 to 4 , who were found in possession of the contraband article, have been let off on bail and the investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents in respect of any offence committed under the Act and he has been in custody for the last 170 days, I am of the view that the rigour under Sec.37 stands diluted in the case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail."

9. The 5th accused is released on bail. It will be an

injustice to deny bail to the petitioner. Adopting the same

principle in Annexure A7the petitioner can be released on bail

after imposing stringent conditions. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the

petitioner is in custody from 06.11.2025, the petitioner can be

released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

the petitioner is a native of Andra Pradesh. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready

to offer local sureties. The same is recorded. I make it clear

that this is not an order of the court, but an oral submission

2025:KER:20485 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. 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.

12. 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

2025:KER:20485 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

Constitution." (underline supplied)

13. 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

2025:KER:20485 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".

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

2025:KER:20485 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 granted by this Court. The

2025:KER:20485 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

jm/

2025:KER:20485 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9865/2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN N.D.P.S. CRIME NO 40 OF 2022 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 10.09.2022

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN N.D.P.S. CRIME NO 40 OF 2022 OF THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 28.02.2023

ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN N.D.P.S. CRIME NO 40 OF 2022 OF THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 06.03.2023

ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY COMPLAINT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN N.D.P.S. CRIME NO 40 OF 2022 OF THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 01.01.2024

ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO 8159 OF 2024 PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04.10.2024

ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO 3040 OF 2024 IN S.C.NO 295 OF 2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-I, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 21.11.2024

ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO 11051 OF 2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.01.2024