Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8161
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MOIDU V.P – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS – Respondent
Bail Appl. 3348/2025
K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, Sreelal Warriar SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when statutory conditions are satisfied, even in serious cases.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 23, and 8(c) - Bail application filed under Section 483 - Petitioner accused of possessing 2.84 grams of Amphetamine - Petitioner in custody since 03.02.2025, no prior criminal record - Court found the quantity intermediate, thus Section 37's rigor not applicable. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Bail Principles - Bail is the rule, jail is the exception - Courts must grant bail when conditions are met, even in serious allegations, to uphold fair trial rights. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was intercepted at Calicut International Airport with a substance identified as Amphetamine. The quantity was classified as intermediate.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is eligible for bail under stringent conditions due to the intermediate quantity and lack of criminal antecedents.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the offence and his background.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail is generally granted unless there are compelling reasons against it, reiterating that courts should not deny bail arbitrarily.
Result: Bail application allowed with specific conditions.
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in OS No.67/2025 of Air Customs, Calicut International Airport, Kozhikode. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 21 and 23 r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, NDPS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 03.02.2025, while the petitioner was returning from Oman and when he reached at International Airport, Calicut, he was intercepted by the Customs Department and it was alleged that they have recovered a crystal like substance which is identified as “Amphetamine” having a weight of 2.84 grams and it was identified with the help of the kit available with the Customs Department. Originally the case was registered as OS No.67/2025 of Air Customs, Calicut International Airport, Kozhikode and subsequently it was renumbered as OR No.26/2025/CPD/CLT of Customs Preventive Division, Calicut.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 03.02.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The counsel also submitted that there is no criminal antecedent to the petitioner. The Standing Counsel for the respondent seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that he filed an objection to the bail application. The Standing Counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and this Court may not grant bail to the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. Admittedly the quantity seized from the petitioner is only intermediate quantity. In such circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody from 03.02.2025. 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 s
