ELDHO ELIYAS v. STATE OF KERALA and STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur

**==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:31908` **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5248 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.180/2025 OF Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` ELDHO ELIYAS ``` ``` AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ELIYAS, MOOLAN HOUSE, PRIYA NAGAR, NAYATHOD P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 572. ``` ``` BY ADVS. EBIN V.Y. SADIK ISMAYIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, IN KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 582.`** ## **`BY ADV NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:31908 ``` B.A No.5248 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------** ## **B.A.No.5248 of 2025** **------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.180 of 2025 of Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The prosecution case is that on 03.03.2025 at 6:30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of a country made single barrel gun and 13 cartridges covered in a blanket and placed on the bed of a bedroom of his house. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31908 ``` B.A No.5248 of 2025 3 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the ## Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 03.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 7. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged is below 7 years. The petitioner is in custody from 03.03.2025. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31908 ``` B.A No.5248 of 2025 4 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: “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 B.A No.5248 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:31908` |48 of 2025|48 of 2025| |---|---| |5<br>have any hesitation in granting bail. The|| |<br>allegations of the prosecution may be very|| |<br>serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to|| |<br>consider the case for grant of bail in|| |<br>accordance with the law."Bail is the rule and|| |jail is an exception"is a settled law. Even in a|| |<br>case like the present case where there are|| |<br>stringent conditions for the grant of bail in|| |<br>the relevant statutes, the same rule holds|| |<br>good with only modifcation that the bail can|| |<br>be granted if the conditions in the<br>|statute are| ## 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 time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:31908` ## B.A No.5248 of 2025 6 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: 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 ``` 2025:KER:31908 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.5248 of 2025 7 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/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. ``` 2025:KER:31908 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.5248 of 2025 8 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 ``` 2025:KER:31908 ``` B.A No.5248 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 9 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** AMR