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

ORDER :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

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

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1001 of 2024 of Kasaragod Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 30.22 grams of MDMA, in his scooter, for the purpose of illicit sale. After analyst report came, it is found the contraband seized is not MDMA, but it is Methamphetamine. If that is the case, the quantity seized is intermediate quantity.

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

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 03.12.2024. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contraband seized is Methamphetamine.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contraband seized is Methamphetamine. If that is the case, the quantity seized is intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody from 03.12.2024. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But, I make it clear that, if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, and if such an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders, even though this bail order is passed by this Court.

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 Const