Chabi Mandal and Roffeeq Mandal v. State of Kerala

B.A.No.4237 of 2025 1 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4237 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.20/2025 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.1268 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **1 CHABI MANDAL AGED 55 YEARS S/O.BREN MANDAL, GOSHARMATH, AMAIPARA, JIAGANJ, MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 742123** **2 ROFEEQ MANDAL AGED 33 YEARS S/O.MUJABIR MANDAL, PURBASTHALI, NIMDAHA, PURBA BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 713512** **BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP SWETHA R. SREELAKSHMI SHIBU** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** B.A.No.4237 of 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:26780 **BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4237 of 2025 3 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4237 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.20 of 2025 of Excise Range Office, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). 3. The prosecution case is that the accused was found in possession of 5.36 Kg of Ganja for sale in a KSRTC bus. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. The petitioners are in custody from 09.02.2025. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.4237 of 2025 4 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 09.02.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. But the Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioners are from West Bengal, and if they are released on bail, they will not be available for trial. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to offer local sureties from the State of Kerala. The same is recorded. But I make it clear that it is not an order from the Court and it is only a voluntary submission from the counsel appearing for the petitioners. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioners are intermediate quantity. Hence the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. B.A.No.4237 of 2025 5 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioners are in custody from 09.02.2025. No criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. In such circumstances, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But I make it clear that, if the petitioners are involved in similar offences in the future, the Investigating Officer can file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, and if such an application is received, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail, even though this order is passed by this Court. 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: B.A.No.4237 of 2025 6 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** “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 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) ## 10. 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 B.A.No.4237 of 2025 7 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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".” 11. 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The submission of the petitioners that they will offer local sureties from the State of Kerala is recorded. B.A.No.4237 of 2025 8 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the 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. B.A.No.4237 of 2025 9 2025:KER:26780 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, 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** DM