Sinjo Siji v. State of Kerala

2025:KER:26911 **==> picture [57 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. 4220 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.173/2025 OF Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.1583 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SINJO SIJI AGED 27 YEARS S/O.SIJI, KANIIRAPARAYIL HOUSE, MELAMURIL, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582** **BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)** **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP-NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2025:KER:26911 B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-------------------------------B.A. No.4220 of 2025 ---------------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025 ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.173 of 2025 of Mannarkkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 07.02.2025, the petitioner was found in possession of 5 Kg. of ganja. He was arrested on the spot. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the 2025:KER:26911 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 07.02.2025 and the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the public prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner has involved in two other cases. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the public prosecutor. It is true that the allegation is serious and there are criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Admittedly the quantity seized is intermediate quantity. In such circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## 2025:KER:26911 B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 petitioner is in custody from 07.02.2025. the investigation is in the final stage. In such circumstances, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. I make it clear that if the petitioner is involved in similar offences in future, the investigating officer can file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court to cancel his bail and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders in that application 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 2025:KER:26911 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 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 have any hesitation in granting bail. The 2025:KER:26911 B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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** 2025:KER:26911 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 ## **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 2025:KER:26911 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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 the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat 2025:KER:26911 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 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. 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 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:26911 B.A.No. 4220 of 2025 liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Scl/