Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when justified, ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21.

COMMON ORDER

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

2. These two cases are connected and I am disposing these two cases by a common order.

3. Petitioner is the accused in Crime Nos.77/2024 and 111/2024 of Kasargod Excise Range. These cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 58 and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

4. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The allegation in Crime No.77/2024 is that, the petitioner was found in possession of 17.28 litres of Indian made Foreign Liquor and in Crime No.111/2024 is that the petitioner was 4 found in possession of 64.08 litres of Indian made Foreign Liquor. Petitioner was arrested in Crime No.111/2024 on 18.11.2024 and the arrest was recorded in Crime No.77/2024 on 16.11.2024.

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

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in custody from 16.11.2024 onwards .

7. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submitted that petitioner is involved in seven other cases, in which the allegation is that, petitioner was found in possession of the Indian made Foreign Liquor.

8. It is true that there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. But, the petitioner was found in possession of the Indian made Foreign liquor, which is available in the market. But, the huge quantity of Indian made Foreign liquor is seized from the petitioner. According to the prosecution, this is for sale. Whether there is any materials to prove that 5 the petitioner kept this Indian made Foreign Liquor for sale is a matter of investigation. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the bail can be granted, on condition that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating OfÏcer can file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail and if such an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can consider the same, eventhough this bail application is allowed by this Court.

9. 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.

10. 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 7 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