Kerala High Court
Solomon vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:26760
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. 4266 OF 2025
CRIME NO.209/2025 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
SOLOMON
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SHAJI, TC 34/1219,
MULLUVILAKAM PURAYIDAM, VALLAKADAVU,
KOCHUTHOPPU, PETTA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008
BY ADVS.
L.D.LIJOROY
RAJESH KUMAR R.
ALEN N. ALBIN
BIBIN RAJ B.T.
VIDYA SAGAR D.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695011
BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:26760
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. 4266 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:26760
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.4266 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 the 3rd accused in Crime No.209
of 2025 of Medical College Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections
22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985( for short 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner
was arrested on 11.02.2025 and was remanded to judicial
custody on 12.02.2025.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 11.02.2025
at 7:15 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 3.66
grams of MDMA in a room at Deej Tourist Home, Medical
College Pattom. Hence it is alleged that the accused
2025:KER:26760
committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 12.02.2025. The counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner
has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in two other
cases.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that allegation
against the petitioner is serious. But, the quantity of contra
band seized is only intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigour
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. The
petitioner is in custody from 12.02.2025. It is true that the
petitioner is involved in two other cases and there is criminal
antecedents. But that alone is not a ground to reject the bail
application, especially, when the petitioner is in custody from
12.02.2025. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I
2025:KER:26760
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 is free to file appropriate application
before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, and if such
an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can pass
appropriate orders, even though this bail 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 Court
observed that:
2025:KER:26760
"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
2025:KER:26760
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)
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
2025:KER:26760
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.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh 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
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
2025:KER:26760
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 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
MSA
2025:KER:26760
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4266/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure Al. TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.209/2025 OF MEDICAL
COLLEGE POLICE STATION DATED 11.02.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE- I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN CRL. MP NO. 834/2025 DATED
11.03.2025
