Kerala High Court
Jitu Pradhan vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 1
R:22308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025
CRIME NO.12/2025 OF Thaliparamba Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2025 IN CRMP
NO.246 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
VADAKARA
PETITIONER/S:
JITU PRADHAN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O LIT PRADHAN, DAKEDINAJU, MANDAKIA, RAIKIA,
KANDHAMAL DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE, PIN - 762101
BY ADVS.
M.ANUROOP
M.DEVESH
MURSHID ALI M.
JYOTHIS MARY
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 2
R:22308
PP- G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 3
R:22308
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3456 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.12/2025 of Excise Range Office, Taliparamba. The crime is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that on 05.02.2025 at about 5 pm, the accused was found in possession of 1139 gms of Ganja. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 4 R:22308 even if the entire allegations are accepted, the contraband seized will come only within the purview of intermediate quantity and he has not committed any offence. The counsel submitted that he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is from Odisha state and if he is released on bail, he will not be available for trial. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to offer local sureties. The same is recorded.
6. This Court considered contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the contraband seized is intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigour under Sec.37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody from 05.02.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on condition that if the petitioner commits similar offence in future, the investigating officer can file BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 5 R:22308 appropriate application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court can 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 6 R:22308 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 7 R:22308 matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"."
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner submit that, he will offer local sureties from the State of Kerala. The same is recorded.
2. The petitioner shall appear BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 8 R:22308 before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the BAIL APPL. NO. 3456 OF 2025 9 R:22308 purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS