O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.58/2024 Neyyattinkara Excise Range. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS' Act)

3. The prosecution case is that on 23.10.2024 at

12.40 am , the excise party intercepted a scooter, which was driven by the petitioner and 8.140 kgs of Ganja was seized.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 23.10.2024. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in yet another case, which is registered under the Abkari Act.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the contraband seized from the petitioner is an intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigour under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. It is true that the petitioner is involved in another case. But considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 23.10.2024, I think the bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. If the petitioner is involved in any offence with similar allegation, the investigating officer is free to file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail and the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders, 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 Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On