2025:KER:29742 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4853 OF 2025 CRIME NO.4/2025 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.3042 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S: KIRAN AGED 31 YEARS S/O. LAZARAS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT T.C.5/985, LALITHAVAKA VIJAYA VILASAM, SASTHAMKONAM DESOM, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, T.C.6/763, AAKULAM DESOM, THURAVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691533 BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4853 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.4/2025 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), r/w 22 (b) & 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act ). 3. The prosecution case is that; on 12.02.2025 at 04:30pm., the accused was found in possession of 5.13 grams of methamphetamine in a zip locked cover. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 12.02.2025. Petitioner is 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 3 ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that, petitioner is involved in one more case with similar set of allegation. 7. Petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as B.A No.3042/2025. Since the petitioner has got criminal antecedents, this Court was not inclined to grant bail. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move it again and this Court granted liberty to move the bail application after three weeks. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious But, admittedly, the contraband seized is intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Petitioner is in custody from 12.02.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the 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 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 4 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: “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. 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 5 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 Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 6 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 the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 7 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 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 8 to dissuade him 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 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 2025:KER:29742 BAIL APPL. NO.4853 OF 2025 9 approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG