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

ORDER :

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.45/2025 of Agali Excise Range. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act .

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused was found in possession of 200 litres of wash on 01.03.2025.

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 01.03.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is criminal antecedent to the petitioner and he is involved in yet another case with same set of allegation.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as BA No.3538/2025. After hearing both sides, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move it again. This Court granted liberty to move it again after two weeks. Accordingly the present bail application is filed. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. 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 -