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.97/2024 of Udumbanchola Excise Range Office. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 8(1) & (2)

and 55 (g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, on

16.08.2024 at 6.00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 12.380 kg of dried ganja, 25 litres of arrack and 150 litres of wash for distilling arrack in his house. Two crimes were registered against the petitioner alleging NDPS Act offences and Abkari Act offences. In connection with Crime No.42/2024, the petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2024. In that case, the petitioner was released on bail as per Annexure-A5 order on 29.10.2024. It is submitted that, when the petitioner was in custody in connection with Crime No.42/2024, permission was granted for formal arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.97/2024 as evident by Annexure-A4 order. After Annexure-A5 order, the petitioner was released on bail because the arrest was not recorded as ordered in Annexure-A4. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application in Crime No.97/2024 which was dismissed by the Sessions court as per Annexure-A7. Based on the same, the petitioner surrendered before the Magistrate and his bail application was rejected as evident by Annexure-A8.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was released on bail in Crime No.42/2024 of Udumbanchola Excise Range. Considering the facts and circumstances narrated above, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating on all Mondays till final report is filed.

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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