Dildar v. State of Kerala

B.A.No.4921 of 2025 1 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4921 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.298/2025 OF Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **DILDAR AGED 30 YEARS S/O GUSHED ALI,BADAMARI, SAMAGURI, RUPAHI, NAGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM, PIN - 782001** **BY ADVS. VISHNU CHANDRAN MUHAMMED NIYAS K.H.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **BY ADV. SR PP - HRITHWIK C S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4921 of 2025 2 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4921 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.298 of 2025 of Peramangalam Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Section 21(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 134.9 gms of Brown sugar. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2025. 4. Heard. 5. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a B.A.No.4921 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Section 420 IPC case in the State of Assam. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner under the NDPS Act. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a native of Assam State and if he is released on bail he will not be available for trial. 6. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. Admittedly, the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. Hence the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The petitioner is in custody from 08.03.2025. The investigation is in the final stage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But I make it clear that, if the petitioner is 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 B.A.No.4921 of 2025 4 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 B.A.No.4921 of 2025 5 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 B.A.No.4921 of 2025 6 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Petitioner shall offer local sureties. 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 B.A.No.4921 of 2025 7 2025:KER:30727 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 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 B.A.No.4921 of 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30727 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