IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Aju manzoor, s/o. Manzoor - appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 4799 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) and 22(b) - Bail application filed by accused in possession of 1.30 grams of MDMA - Petitioner in custody for 60 days, investigation incomplete - Rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act not applicable due to intermediate quantity - Bail granted with stringent conditions. (Paras 2, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Bail - Principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a narcotics case, has been in custody since 11.02.2025, with the prosecution alleging possession of MDMA. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing criminal antecedents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner could be released on bail with stringent conditions due to the nature of the case and the duration of custody.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the principle of bail as a rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, reaffirming the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 336/2025 of Kundara Police Station, registered under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused was found in possession of 1.30 grams of MDMA.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 11.02.2025. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that petitioner has got criminal antecedents and petitioner is involved in yet another case with similar set of allegation.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody for 60 days, as on today. The investigation is not complete even now. The contraband seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of detention, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
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 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 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".
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail A
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; non-commercial quantity of narcotics allows for bail under stringent conditions.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; serious allegations do not preclude bail if conditions are satisfied.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; prolonged detention without trial can justify bail even under stringent statutory conditions.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
The court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the need for fair trial rights and proper consideration of bail applications.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.