Kerala High Court

Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025




                                                       2025:KER:26929
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                           BAIL APPL. NO. 4285 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.16/2025 OF Mannarkkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2582 OF

2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

               GOPINATHAN
               AGED 57 YEARS
               S/O.KRISHNAN, NELATHUMARA HOUSE, PARAMBANTHARISH,
               THENKARA P.O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN -
               678582


               BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW


RESPONDENT/S:

               STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031



OTHER PRESENT:

               SR PP-HRITHWIK C S

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4282/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025




                                                         2025:KER:26929

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                           BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.15/2025 OF Mannarkkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2588 OF

2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

               GOPINATHAN
               AGED 57 YEARS
               S/O.KRISHNAN, NELATHUMARA HOUSE, PARAMBANTHARISH,
               THENKARA P.O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN -
               678582


               BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:
          SR PP-HRITTHWIK C S


       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4285/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025




                                                            2025:KER:26929
                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------
                   B.A. Nos. 4282 & 4285 of 2025
                    --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025



                                     ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail

applications are filed by one and the same person.

Therefore, these bail applications are filed by a common

order. The petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos. 15/2025

and 16/2025 of Mannarkkad Excise Range Office,

Palakkad. The above cases are registered alleging offences

punishable under Secs. 8(1) r/w 8(2) and Sec. 67B of the

Kerala Abkari Act.

2. The allegation in Crime No. 15/2025 of

Mannarkkad Excise Range is that the petitioner was found BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025

2025:KER:26929 in possession of 34 litres of arrack in a vehicle. The

allegation in Crime No. 16/2025 of Mannarkkad Excise

Range is that, based on the confession of the petitioner, a

search was conducted in his residence and 125.8 litres of

arrack was seized.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2025. The

counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from

that date onwards and the petitioner is ready to abide any

conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public

Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public

Prosecutor submitted that the quantity of arrack seized is

huge. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that, except

these two cases, no other case is registered against the

petitioner, under the Abkari Act. BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025

2025:KER:26929

5. Admittedly, the petitioner earlier filed two

separate bail applications before this Court as BA

Nos.2588/2025 & 2582/2025. After hearing both sides, this

Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. At

that stage, the counsel for the petitioner want to withdraw

the bail application with liberty to move it again. This

Court granted liberty to file a fresh bail application after

three weeks. Accordingly, the present bail applications are

filed. Considering the period of detention and also

considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I

think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing

stringent conditions. But, I make it clear that if the

petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the

investigating officer can file appropriate application before

the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail. If such an

application is filed, the jurisdictional court can pass

appropriate orders in it, even though this order is passed BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025

2025:KER:26929 by this Court.

6. 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.

7. 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025

2025:KER:26929 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)

8. 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.4285 & 4282 OF 2025

2025:KER:26929 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"."

9. 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: