Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; eligibility for bail exists when conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving intermediate quantities of narcotics.

ORDER

This Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected and therefore, I am disposing these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioners in these bail applications are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.477/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (b) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case is that the accused three in number were found in possession of altogether 3.33 grams of MDMA and 35 grams of Ganja. The petitioners were arrested on 04.03.2025.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 04.03.2025 and they are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that as far as the 1^st accused is concerned, he is involved in four other cases; but all cases are registered for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. But there is no criminal antecedent as far as the 3^rd accused is concerned, who is the petitioner in BA No.4280/2025.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the quantity seized from the petitioners 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 petitioners under the NDPS Act. The petitioners are in custody from 04.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. I make it clear that if the petitioners are 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 Court