Ashkar v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
- Judgment Date
- 2025-04-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner Ashkar is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer as required, not leave India without permission, and not commit any similar offence. Observations are restricted to this bail proceeding. If any condition is violated, the jurisdictional court may cancel the bail. The court also noted that Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) is applicable to the case.
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted to the petitioner Ashkar on stringent conditions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Ashkar
Respondents
- State of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Shyam Kumar M.P
- • Muhammed Nazim K.S.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sr PP - NOUSHAD K A
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Bail Application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is by Ashkar in Crime No.209/2025 of Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki, alleging an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of 105 grams of hashish oil seized on 10.03.2025. The petitioner has been in custody since 10.03.2025. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to abide by any condition the Court imposes and that, since the seized quantity is an intermediate one, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted; the petitioner is in custody for a period that warrants consideration of bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner per the IO report. The Court examined the facts, noting the seriousness of the allegations, but also the intermediate quantity and the period of detention, and concluded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. The Court relied on the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as enunciated in Chidambaram P. v. D.E.; Jalaluddin Khan v. UOI; and Manish Sisodia v. D.E., and cited Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable in this case. It directed that the petitioner be released on bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appear before the IO as required, not leave India without permission, not commit a similar offence, and that the observations are for the bail proceeding only. If violated, bail can be cancelled. The order grants bail on these conditions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in custody since 10.03.2025 and is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court. He argued that the seized contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity, hence Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. He urged that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing established Supreme Court and Kerala decisions, and that a grant of bail with stringent conditions is warranted given detention period and circumstances.
Contentions of Respondents
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that there are no criminal antecedents per the IO report. He acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized the need to follow legal principles and the NDPS framework. The court was advised to consider the quantity and detention period under the relevant statutory provisions and precedents.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2019 (16) SCALE 870 | Positive | Affirms the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the Court to favor bail in appropriate cases. |
| Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India | 2024 KHC 6431 | Positive | Reiterates that Courts should grant bail where deserving, reinforcing the bail-first approach. |
| Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2024 KHC 6426 | Positive | Notes that bail should not be withheld as punishment; supports the rule-that-bail principle. |
| Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala | 2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260 | Positive | Applied in this case as applicable, reinforcing bail-oriented reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ashkar v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.