Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; non-commercial quantity of narcotics allows for bail under stringent conditions.

ORDER :

1. This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.179/2025 of Kasaragod Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act 1985'). The petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 17.02.2025 at about 13:25 Hours, at Karanthakkad in Kasaragod District, the accused was found in possession of 25.90 grams of MDMA. Thus, the accused persons allegedly committed the above offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody. Investigation of the offence is completed and hence further detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is unnecessary. The learned counsel further submitted that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that after the receipt of lab report the penal provision is altered to Section 22(b) of NDPS at the place of 22(c) originally registered.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the contraband seized from the petitioners is the following: 25.90 grams of MDMA.

8. The narcotic drug seized in the instant case is not of commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigour under S.37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. No criminal antecedents are also alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for about 90 days. In such circumstances, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

9. 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, (2020) 13 SCC 791 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.

10. 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, 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."

11. 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 matt