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.

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1182 of 2024 of Mavelikara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 8(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act')

3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.10.2024 at 07:05 p.m. the accused were found in possession of 7.90 gms of MDMA, in room No. 309 of the RK Residency situated on Mavelikara Nangiarkulangara road, for the purpose of sale. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.

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

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 24.10.2024 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The counsel also submitted that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in this case.

6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that no NDPS Act case is registered against the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of intermediary quantity of MDMA. Therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. The petitioner is in custody from 24.10.2024. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail can be granted on a condition that, if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating officer can file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail and if such an application is received, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders, even though this order is passed by this Court. With that condition, the bail can be granted. The petitioner can also be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays till the final report is filed.

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