SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Sooraj, S/o Sukheshan - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondent 
Bail Appl. No. 5227 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.R.SASITH, R.K.CHIRUTHA, ANJANA SURESH.E, REETHU JACOB, LIDHIYA GEORGE, HASNA JABIL, FARSANA NOUSHAD
For the Respondent: SRI NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights.

Headnote:

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 22(b) - Bail Application under Section 483 - Accused found in possession of 1.519 grams of MDMA - No criminal antecedent alleged against the petitioner - Quantity seized is intermediate, thus rigour under Section 37 not attracted - Petitioner in custody since 23.02.2025 - Bail granted with stringent conditions. (Paras 2, 6, 10)

(B) Principle of Bail - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in a narcotics case, arrested for possession of MDMA, and has been in custody since February 2025 without any prior criminal record.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner could be released on bail with stringent conditions due to the nature of the offence and absence of criminal antecedents.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the offence and the absence of prior criminal history.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should be granted as a rule, not as a punishment, and that the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the seized quantity justified bail.

Result: Bail Application allowed.

ORDER :

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.34/2025 of Chathannur Excise Range. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused was found in possession of 1.519 grams of MDMA.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 23.02.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the quantity seized from the petitioner is only intermediate quantity. In such circumstances, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody from 23.02.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. I make it clear that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail and if such an application is received, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders in that application even though this order is passed by this Court.

7. 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.

8. 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)

9. 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 -

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top