SASI v. State of Kerala and The Excise Range Officer, Parappanangadi Excise Range Office, Malappuram District

BA No.5366 of 2025 1 ``` 2025:KER:31453 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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. 5366 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.33/2025 OF Parappanangadi Excise Range Office, ``` ## **`Malappuram`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.4239 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:`** ``` SASI AGED 42 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, THELAPURATH VEETTIL, CHERUR, KAPPIL, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306 ``` ## **`BY ADV K.RAKESH`** ## **`RESPONDENT( S )/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676303`** ``` BY ADV. SRI. G. SUDHEER, PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` - **`10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** BA No.5366 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:31453` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------BA No.5366 of 2025 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.33/2025 of Parappanangadi Excise Range Office, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 55(i), 15C r/w 63 and 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 06.03.2025 at about 06.30 PM, the accused was BA No.5366 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31453 ``` found selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor in an autorikshaw in violation of the provisions of Kerala Abkari Act. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2025. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as BA No.4239/2025. This Court was not inclined to grant bail, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move it again. This Court allowed the petitioner to BA No.5366 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31453 ``` move a fresh bail application after 10 days. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. The petitioner is in custody from 06.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 6. 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 in as much 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. BA No.5366 of 2025 5 ``` 2025:KER:31453 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## 7. 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. BA No.5366 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:31453` 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) ## 8. 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 BA No.5366 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:31453` 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 decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _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 co-operate with_ BA No.5366 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31453 ``` _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 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_ BA No.5366 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31453 ``` _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_ `w` _ith law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above condition._ **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** nvj