IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3305 OF 2025 CRIME NO.42/2025 OF Kottarakkara Excise Range Office, Kollam PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 56 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KARUNA NILAYAM, PALLIKKAL NORTH, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691566 BY ADVS.

K.V.ANIL KUMAR RADHIKA S.ANIL NIJAZ JALEEL RESPONDEN T ( S )/COMPLAINAN T :

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 BY ADV . :

PP- G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

-------------------------------------------

BA No.3305 of 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2025

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.42/2025 of Kottarakkara Excise Range OfÏce, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, on

01.03.2025 at 08.05 AM, the accused was found in possession of 5.750 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 01.03.2025.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating OfÏcer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he was found in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is available in the market. The petitioner is in custody from 01.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

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