Gireesan v. State of Kerala & Excise Range Officer, Nedumangad

``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** ``` CRIME NO.55/2025 OF Nedumangad Excise Range Office, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2025 IN CRMP ``` ``` NO.1181 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` GIREESAN AGED 52 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.PACHAN, EARATH PUTHEN VEEDU, SANTHIGIRI, PURAVOORKONAM DESOM, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695541 ``` ## **`BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH`** ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2EXCISE RANGE OFFICER NEDUMANGAD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695541 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** ## **`SRI NOUSHAD KA, SR PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------** ## **B.A. No.5267 of 2025** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2025** ## **`ORDER`** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.55/2025 of Nedumangadu Excise Range. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused was found in possession of 13.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. An amount of Rs.1000/- was also recovered from the petitioner. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** the petitioner is in custody from 01.04.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 6. Admittedly the contraband seized from the petitioner is Indian Made Foreign Liquor which is available in market. The petitioner is in custody from 01.04.2025. There is no criminal antecedent to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions. 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. ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** 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 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 modifcation that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfed. 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) ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** 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 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: ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** 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 cooperate 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. 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. ``` 2025:KER:31111 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025`** 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 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** jv