Kerala High Court
Hamras Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:19663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3335 OF 2025
CRIME NO.637/2022 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.2879 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
HAMRAS MUHAMMED
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, PURAYIL, PADANILAM
P.O., ARAMBRAM, MADAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN - 673 571.
BY ADVS.
P.SAMSUDIN
JASNEED JAMAL
LIRA A.B.
DEVIKA E.D.
ABIN RASHID
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19663
B.A No.3335 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3335 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.637 of 2022 of Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, with the intention to obtain wrongful gain, conspired together, as part of the illegal transportation of narcotic drugs, have arranged Visa and other documents for the son of the defacto complainant to travel to Dubai. When he reached 2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 3 Dubai, he was entrusted with a packet, by the agents of the accused and as per their instruction, he proceeded from there to Qatar to obtain the job. When he reached Qatar, it was found that the packet which was handed over to him contained narcotic drugs, and he was prosecuted for the offences by the authorities in Qatar. The complaint was submitted in such circumstances highlighting that it was a part of a conspiracy hatched by the accused persons for the purpose of transporting narcotic drugs to various places abroad.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as B.A No.1939/2025. After hearing both sides, this Court was not inclined to grant bail. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move it again. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a bail 2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 4 application as B.A No.2879/2025, before the expiry of two weeks. This Court refused to entertained that bail application as per Annexure A8 order. Now the present bail application is filed after two weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 27.01.2025, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
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.
2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 5
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 2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 6 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 2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 7 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 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".
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:
2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 8
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.
2. The petitioner shall appear 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 9 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. 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 nvj 2025:KER:19663 B.A No.3335 of 2025 10 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3335/2025 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 29-07-2022 IN CRIME NO. 637/2022 OF THE VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION Annexure A2 T RUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19-07-2023 IN BAIL APPL.3721/2023 ON HIGH COURT Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO. 637/2022 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PROSECUTOR Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-01- 2025 IN CRLMP NO. 481/2025 OF JFCM-III N. PARAVUR Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-02- 2025 IN CMP NO. 611/2025 OF JFCM-III N. PARAVUR.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 18-02-2025 IN BAIL APPL.1939/2025 ON HIGH COURT Annexure A8 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 05-03-2025 IN BAIL APPL.2879/2025 ON HIGH COURT