Full Judgment
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 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 4 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 5 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 6
“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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 7 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 8 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 9 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4266 OF 2025 10 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