BA No.4590 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4590 OF 2025 CRIME NO.421/2025 OF Town East Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2: 1 SHYAMAL ROY AGED 44 YEARS S/O SHALOKUMAR HAT, SANTALPUR, CHENGPARA, JALPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL, INDIA, PIN - 736121 2 KANIKA ROY AGED 30 YEARS S/O PADEN ROY, KOCH BIHAR, CHENGPARA, JALPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL, INDIA, PIN - 736121 BY ADVS. JERRY MATHEW DEVIKA K.R. SIYAD UMMER RESPONDENT ( S )/COMPLAINANT : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. : SR PP - NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.4590 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29053 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4590 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.421/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 28.02.2025 at about 19.20 hours, when the BA No.4590 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29053 petitioners were searched, 2.310 Kgms of Ganja was seized from the 1st petitioner and 1.466 Kgms of Ganja was seized from the 2nd petitioner. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 28.02.2025. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners. But, Public Prosecutor submitted that the BA No.4590 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29053 petitioners are from the State of West Bengal and if they are released on bail, they will not be available for trial. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to furnish local sureties from Thrissur District and the same is recorded. I make it clear that, this is not an order from this Court, but this is a voluntary submission by the counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. But, the contraband seized from the petitioners are intermediate quantity. If that be the case, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Moreover, the petitioners are in custody from 28.02.2025. Considering the facts BA No.4590 of 2025 5 2025:KER:29053 and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of detention, I think, bail can be granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions. But, I make it clear that, if the petitioners are involved in any similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file an application before the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders in it, in accordance with law, even though this 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 BA No.4590 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29053 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 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, BA No.4590 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29053 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 Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our BA No.4590 of 2025 8 2025:KER:29053 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".” Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: 1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of BA No.4590 of 2025 9 2025:KER:29053 the jurisdictional Court. The submission of the petitioners that they will offer local sureties from Thrissur District is recorded. 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the BA No.4590 of 2025 10 2025:KER:29053 jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even BA No.4590 of 2025 11 2025:KER:29053 though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above condition. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE