Kerala High Court
Suresh .V @ Unni vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:26930
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. 4288 OF 2025
CRIME NO.159/2025 OF Shornur Police Station, Palakkad
PETITIONER/S:
SURESH .V @ UNNI
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, POYILOOR,
VADANAMKURUSSI, ONGALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679121
BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
SADIK ISMAYIL
R.GAYATHRI
M.MAHIN HAMZA
ALWIN JOSEPH
BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:26930
SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679121
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:26930
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 4288 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.159/2025 of Shornur Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 55(g) of the Kerala
Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused was
found in possession of 14.250 litres of arrack on
2025:KER:26930
22.02.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 23.02.2025. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 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.
6. 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 23.02.2025. No criminal
antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. Considering
the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner can
2025:KER:26930
be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.
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 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
2025:KER:26930
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)
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
2025:KER:26930
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"."
10. 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
2025:KER:26930
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/her
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
2025:KER:26930
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.
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
SKS
