Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized, and arrests require justification.

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 405/2024 of Vengara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sec. 286 IPC and Secs. 4(b) and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 02.05.2024 at about 10.30 am, at a place called Noorekkad, the accused was found conducting quarrying activities without any licence, using explosive substances, endangering human life and property and thus committed the offences.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Explosive Substances Act is attracted. The counsel takes me through the definition clause in and submitted that mere seizure of three shock tubes will not attract the offences under the . The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him from the investigating officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. Whether the offences alleged are attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a matter of investigation. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed.

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. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.

“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. ( Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189 : (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is no