Kerala High Court
Unni Sharma @ Unni vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.3864 of 2025
1
2025:KER:25709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3864 OF 2025
CRIME NO.37/2025 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
UNNI SHARMA @ UNNI
AGED 43 YEARS
ELAMBALLIL KIZHAKATHIL (H) VENMANI CHENGANOOR
ALAPUZHA, PIN - 689509
BY ADVS.
SHYAM KUMAR M.P
JISHNUDAS V.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
PP- G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3864 of 2025
2
2025:KER:25709
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3864 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.37 of 2025 of
Chengannur Excise Range Office, Alappuzha. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under
Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused was
found in possession of 1 litre 550 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said
offences. The petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2025.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 13.03.2025. The counsel submitted
2025:KER:25709
that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court
grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the
report received by him, no criminal antecedents are alleged against
the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation
against the petitioner is serious. But the petitioner is in custody
from 13.03.2025. No criminal antecedents are alleged against the
petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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
judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and
2025:KER:25709
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 be a violation of the rights
guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution."
(underline supplied)
2025:KER:25709
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
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to
2025:KER:25709
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. The observations and findings in this order is only
for the purpose of deciding this bail application.
The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar
Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER
1260] is applicable in this case also.
2025:KER:25709
6. 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 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
