2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 CRIME NO.376/2024 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC NO.1006 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: KIRAN PAYAS, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PAYAS, THURUTHIPARAMBU HOUSE, VISHNUPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544 BY ADVS. K.K.SETHUKUMAR SARITHA G.R. K.M.RAPHY SREEKRISHNADATH PANDARATHIL E.K. NISHA MATHEW R.RAHUL MEENAKSHY V.S. PREETHY K. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -2- THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -3- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J ------------------------------------------ B.A.No.3825 of 2025 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 376/2024 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(II)A, 27A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act read with Section 24 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act. The petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2024. 2. The prosecution case is that petitioners 1 to 6 hatched a conspiracy to procure narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance to make illegal profit. Accordingly, the 1st accused received Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th accused 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -4- and went in a car to Bangalore and purchased 180 grams of MDMA from the 6th accused. After accused Nos.1 to 3 returned back to Kerala with the contraband article, they handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the 4th accused. They also proposed to give 100 grams of MDMA to the 5th accused for the money he paid to the 1st accused. While the 1st accused was traveling in the car with 100 grams of MDMA, 4 grams of ganja and Hans, to hand over the same to the 5th accused, the Detecting Officer intercepted the vehicle at Maradu, Ernakulam and accordingly, 101.09 grams of MDMA was seized from the car. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused is also actively involved in the case. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th accused against whom similar allegation has made, is already released on bail. It is also submitted that the 4th accused was arrested only on 20.03.2024 and the petitioner 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -5- was arrested on 03.03.2024. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. It is also submitted that the only material against the petitioner is the confession statement and some alleged phone conversation. It is also submitted that there were some bank transactions between the petitioner and the other accused. On the same set of facts, this Court granted bail to the 4th accused as per Annexure 3 order is the submission. 5. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioner and the 4th accused are similar. If that is the case, I think the petitioner can also be released on bail. 6. In Annexure 3 order, it is observed in paragraph 8 as follows: 8. Going by the prosecution allegation in the case on hand as against the petitioner, the only 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -6- allegation is that the 1st accused had confessed that he had handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the petitioner. In the light of the law laid down in Tofan Singh's case and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioner has not committed the above offences and that he is not likely to commit an offence if he is enlarged on bail. Moreover, I find that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than seven months, the investigation in the case is complete and the charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, I hold that the rigour under Section 37 of the Act stands diluted against the petitioner. 7. The same principle is applicable in the case of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner can be released 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -7- on bail. The rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS can be relaxed in this case also. 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: “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 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -8- 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) 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 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -9- 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 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -10- 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 them 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -11- 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 bpr 2025:KER:27772 BAIL APPL. NO. 3825 OF 2025 -12- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3825/2025 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.376/2024 OF MARADU POLICE STATION Annexure 2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.2366/2024, DATED 05/08/2024 Annexure 3 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.6026/2024, DATED 08/11/2024 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT