This is an appeal under MACA No. 2203 of 2018 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of a 3-year-old child in a road accident on 10.08.2010. The Tribunal held the driver negligent, awarding Rs 8,70,500 in total. The insurer (3rd respondent) challenged the quantum, arguing that the notional income of the deceased child and several heads of compensation were excessive, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Meena Devi, Kusmi Devi, and Meera Devi. The High Court undertook a detailed comparision of authorities concerning compensation in child-death cases, noting the Meera Devi and Kusmi Devi decisions that discuss enhancement concepts and the approach to conventional heads like funeral expenses, pain and suffering, love and affection, and mental shock. The court ultimately held that the loss of dependency of Rs 6,30,000 was not excessive, but deducted amounts awarded under conventional heads in light of those decisions. The outcome: the appeal is allowed in part, with the total compensation recalculated to Rs 6,35,500. The insurer is ordered to deposit this amount with 8% interest within two months, and upon deposit, the Tribunal must disburse the funds to the petitioners as per the Tribunal’s ratios.
This is a criminal appeal (Crl.A No. 1674 of 2011) preferred by the appellant Sebastian, challenging a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The judgment under appeal dated 22.08.2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), North Paravur, in SC No. 13/2011, sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The offense arose from seizure of 10 litres of arrack in a plastic container on 31.01.2007, with the Excise Inspector, North Paravur, arresting the accused for allegedly transporting contraband. The prosecution examined four witnesses and proved several exhibits, including the seizure mahazar, and a certificate of chemical analysis. The appellant contends that the chain of custody of the sample is not established because the forwarding note for sending the sample to the laboratory was not produced, and the officials who handled the sample during transit were not examined. The court below convicted after a 232 Cr.P.C. trial and rejected the defense. On appeal, the High Court scrutinizes the crucial requirement that the sample tested in the laboratory must be the same as the sample seized, and that the chain of custody must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Citing Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, and Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, the court finds gaps in link evidence. Consequently, the conviction is set aside, the accused is acquitted, and the appeal is allowed.
Samuel Jacob and Jacob Samson, petitioners in OP (DRT) No. 234 of 2022 before the High Court of Kerala, challenge a sale notice issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Exhibit P15 dated 22-02-2022) read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. They assert the notice is arbitrary and illegal and seek quashing, together with a direction to call for the records behind the sale. They also seek stay of all proceedings under Exhibit P15 pending disposal of S.A. No.316/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) II, Ernakulam, and urge that the DRT be empowered to dispose of the securitisation application expeditiously. The petition sets out that the first petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Samson & Sons Lifestyle, which had availed a cash credit facility and a term loan aggregating ₹2.5 crore from the SBI; due to non-payment, recovery proceedings were initiated and assets brought to sale. The petition contends the DRT was not sitting at the relevant time, limiting the available remedies and prompting Article 227 challenge. The respondents concede that the DRT is now functioning and that reliefs can be sought there. The High Court, after noting the pending SA 316/2021 and the availability of alternate remedies, held that entertaining writ reliefs was not warranted and directed the DRT II, Ernakulam to dispose of SA 316/2021 and its interlocutory applications expeditiously, thereby addressing the matter through the statutory forum rather than the writ petition.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Sec. 482 CrPC, arising from Crime No. 348/2019 of Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode. Petitioners/accused nos. 1–5 were charged in SC Nos. 209/2022 and 459/2021 before the Additional Sessions Judge (VA), Kozhikode, with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 436, 427 and 506 read with 149 IPC, allegedly for forming an unlawful assembly and setting fire to the dress of the defacto complainant. The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that the dispute has been settled and they do not wish to continue prosecution; the victim submitted an affidavit supporting the settlement. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but otherwise acknowledged the settlement. The learned judge surveyed the relevant Supreme Court doctrine, citing State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688) and the cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 SCC 303) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466). The court held that, given the private nature of the dispute and the settlement, the matter falls within the permissible scope of quashing non‑compoundable offences under S.482 CrPC, subject to careful scrutiny of the circumstances. The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the further proceedings in the connected SC Nos. 209/2022 and 459/2021 are quashed.
The writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account No. 0338101032678 by Canara Bank, Malappuram district, on a police requisition. The petitioner asserts the freezing is illegal and arbitrary and seeks lifting of the debit freeze to enable normal banking. Canara Bank contends there is a lien on Rs. 12,000 and the freeze follows a police requisition. The Court relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) to hold that freeze orders must be confined to the amounts specified in police directions, with the police required to inform the bank if continued freezing is necessary and for what period. The judgment discusses Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106) and cites State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to support the view that timely reporting of seizures is critical and delays can impact validity. The court directs the bank to restrict the freeze to the stated amount, to await information from the police on continuation, and to act accordingly; if no information is received, the petitioner may approach the Court again. It further requires service of the judgment on concerned officers and imposes a two-month reporting window for seizure notices, with the overall writ petition disposed with directions.
WP(C) Nos.16943 of 2023; 26590 of 2023; 38375 of 2023 These three writ petitions, all filed by two petitioners (Athulya P. in W.P.(C) Nos.16943/2023 and 26590/2023; Arathy C.V. in W.P.(C) No.38375/2023), challenge the recruitment process for Junior Clerk posts in the Elappully Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The core dispute arose after the managing committee was superseded and an administrative committee was appointed under Sections 32 and 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The administrative committee received short lists from the Kerala Cooperative Service Examination Board, conducted interviews, and published Ext.P5 rank lists with Ext.P7 advisories. Petitioners argued that the administrative committee, as a stopgap body, has no power to conduct interviews, draw up rank lists, or issue appointment advisories; authority to appoint lay with the managing committee under Rule 182(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Respondents contended that the administrative committee manages day‑to‑day affairs and that Rule 182(4)(v) mandates timely interviews. The court embarked on a detailed examination of Sections 32, 33, Rule 182, and related decisions (including cases like Indrasenan, Thiruvalla East Bank, and Rajan N. V.), concluding that the administrative committee cannot undertake policy decisions, including permanent appointments. It held that the managing committee’s cancellation of Ext.P5 and related steps are legally valid, and ultimately dismissed the petitions, holding that appointments must be made by the managing committee from the rank list on record.
The petitioner, Ahalia International Foundation, a non-profit healthcare-oriented entity, challenges the stand of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board insisting on Environmental Clearance for the hospital project’s Consent to Operate. It contends that under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (SO 1533(E)), prior EC was required only for projects over 20,000 sq.m, and that subsequent notifications of 2018 and 2025 altered or superseded this, which cannot be applied retroactively since construction began in 2009 based on Ext.P1 (building permit 25.05.2008) and Ext.P2 (Consent to Establish, 01.07.2009). The petitioner asserts exemptions for educational institutions because the hospital contains paramedical education, and seeks exemption under the 2018 notifications (SO 5736(E) and SO 5733(E)) for buildings under the threshold. The respondents counter that the 2006 notification governed at the time of commencement; they argue the 2018 and 2025 notifications are prospective and cannot be retroactively applied, especially since the Delhi High Court and NGT stayed the 2018 provision, and because the hospital is not an exempted educational facility. The court analyzes statutory provisions, stays, and precedents (notably Kusum Ingots and Mahendran) and concludes that the petitioner is not entitled to relief; the petition is dismissed, albeit without prejudice to obtaining EC.
This writ petition under Article 226 challenges recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act by Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd. and its authorised officer after default by the petitioners who had availed loans. The matter arose from a Lok Adalat settlement in which the petitioners agreed to pay Rs 1,70,000 against an initial liability of Rs 4,10,000, but failed to fulfil those terms. The respondents now seek recovery of the outstanding Rs 3,27,169 as of 10-03-2025. The petition sought relief either under the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act, 2008 (petitioner's second petitioner being a fisherman) or, alternatively, enforcement of the Lok Adalat settlement. It was argued that the lenders’ interest was excessive and in violation of RBI’s Fair Practices Code. The Kerala Fishermen Debt Relief Commission contended that its jurisdiction covers loans up to 31-12-2007. The Court held the petition not maintainable under the controlling Supreme Court principle in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd, but nonetheless directed the respondents to accept repayment in installments and regularize the loan, while staying coercive proceedings. The petition was not granted relief under the Commission Act. The resolution requires the petitioners to repay Rs 3,27,169 in 15 monthly installments, with the first payment by 30-04-2025, continuing EMI payments, and non-payment allowing legal action, and coercive measures kept in abeyance.
This is a bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.355/2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The prosecution claims mental and physical harassment of the de facto complainant and violation of a Magistrate’s order. The petitioners contend that matrimonial disputes exist between the parties and that the case is falsely foisted. After hearing both sides, the Kerala High Court, noting that matrimonial disputes often require careful balancing of personal liberty with prosecutorial interests, held that bail can be granted on stringent conditions, in line with the established jurisprudence. The court relied on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to reiterate that bail remains the rule and jail the exception, and on later authorities such as Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal to emphasize that arrest and detention should not be routine and that personal liberty is fundamental. The court enumerated conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, possible release on a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties if arrest is contemplated, ongoing cooperation with the investigation, prohibitions on leaving India, and avoidance of similar offences; the order also allows for continued investigation even while on bail and cautions the court’s ability to cancel bail for violations. This is a single-judge order by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan affirming a cautious but supportive approach to bail in matrimonial cases.
Anil.M.P and Mini.K.S, petitioners, challenge the Commercial Court, Ernakulam’s order rejecting IA 6/2023 to accept their written statement in CS No.490/2021. The suit, for recovery of money, was instituted on 4 December 2021; the defendants appeared on 13 January 2022 and sought time to file a written statement. Documents relating to the transaction were misplaced, delaying the WS; after tracing them, the petitioners filed the WS along with IA 6/2023 on 27 February 2023, i.e., about a year after suit initiation. The Commercial Court, applying the amended provisions, held that the written statement could not be taken on record and rejected the application. The High Court examines the amendments to Orders V and VIII of the CPC under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which entrench a 120-day period from service of summons; after which the right to file is forfeited. It relies on SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210 to insist that amendments are mandatory, and on Raj Process Equipments & Systems Pvt Ltd v. Honest Derivatives Pvt Ltd (2022) LiveLaw SC 928 to note a contrary, directory reading in a transfer scenario. On the facts, the court concludes the WS was beyond the permitted period and the impugned order does not warrant interference; the petition is dismissed under Article 227.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1 OF 2007 This is a criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. (CRL REV PET NO. 1 OF 2007) filed by the accused, Niyas, challenging a conviction under Section 498A IPC by the Addl. Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara, and the related judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam. The prosecution alleged cruelty by the husband (and sister-in-law) at the matrimonial home, including a dowry demand and assault on the wife (PW1). Crucially, there is no medical evidence, no hospital treatment, and the trial record consists mainly of near-relatives’ statements; no detail about the alleged assault is provided. The court scrutinizes Section 498A IPC, specifically the Explanation (a) and (b) defining cruelty and harassment, and emphasizes that harassment must be linked to coercing the wife or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or security. The high court cites a catena of Supreme Court decisions (Satish Kumar Batra; Rajendran; Onkar Nath Mishra; M. Srinivasulu) to require proof of cruelty/consequences likely to cause harm; it also notes the Preeti Gupta decision cautioning against over-implication. Observing lack of evidence of assault or injury, and failure of lower courts to apply the law correctly, the court holds that the case does not fall within the scope of 498A and reverses the conviction, acquitting the accused and cancelling bail bonds. The revision petition is allowed.
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for transporting 495 litres of spirit in a jeep on 13 April 2002 at Parakkad, Palakkad. The appellants were tried along with other accused and convicted by the trial court under the Abkari Act; they were acquitted of certain IPC and MV Act offences. The core grounds of challenge revolve around the chain of custody and reliability of the confiscated contraband sample. The defense contends that the sample’s journey to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory is unproven, as Ext. P1 seizure mahazar lacks the seal’s description, the evidence regarding the seal is missing, and there was an unexplained delay in producing the properties before the court. It is argued that part of the investigation was conducted by an incompetent officer, with several responsible officials not examined, thereby potentially tainting the proceedings. The prosecution relies on the laboratory report and the fact of seizure to sustain the conviction. The Kerala High Court, citing Ravi v. State of Kerala for delay in production, Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala for seal description, Daulat Ram for tampering concerns, and Vijay Pandey for co-relation of lab reports, held that the evidence fails to prove the chain of custody and genuineness of the sample. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the accused are acquitted and discharged.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3690 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Thejas Krishna, the 3rd accused in Crime No.147/2025 of Haripad Police Station (District & Sessions Court, Alappuzha). The accusation comprises offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Nos. 79, 296(b), 333, 115(2), 118(1), 110, 126(2), 324(2) and 3(5)). The prosecution alleges that on 09.02.2025, at the defacto complainant’s house in Karuvatta North Muri, the accused engaged in a sequence of acts: the 1st accused allegedly abused the wife and mother; the 2nd accused pulled down the mother from a chair; the 3rd accused brandished a long stick toward the complainant’s head and beat his left back; the 2nd accused brandished a stick toward the complainant’s head; the 4th accused beat the complainant’s forehead; the father and uncle were assaulted and property was damaged (two chairs and a car) causing about Rs. 16,000 in damages. The petitioner contends non-commitment of any offence and willingness to comply with conditions if released on bail; the Public Prosecutor opposes, noting no criminal antecedent in the IO report. The judge invokes bail jurisprudence (bail as rule, jail as exception), cites Davis P.R., Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia and Anzar Azeez, and ultimately grants bail subject to stringent conditions including deposit of Rs. 4,000, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO, non-issuance of inducements, and restrictions on leaving India. The order emphasizes personal liberty and welfare of a fair trial while safeguarding the investigation.
This is a review petition filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam against the order/judgment in OP(C) 1663/2020. The petitioner, Rajasree, contends that the impugned judgment did not properly consider the true facts and misapplied prior law. It is argued that the original proceedings began as POP No.15/2004 in 2004, later converted to a suit in 2015, and that the court below erred in holding the first respondent disabled without a proper appraisal of medical evidence and voir dire under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC. The petitioner claims the decision relied on Mary v. Leelamma and other authorities to advance a broad interpretation of “mentally infirm” to include the first respondent, despite contrary depositions and evidence. It is further argued that Premakumari C.V v. C.V. Pavithran supports a defendant’s right to challenge the plaint’s assertion of unsoundness, while Balakrishnan v. Kalliyani and Roy Thomas v. Lekha Roy prescribe that a proper enquiry is essential when appointing a guardian; Roy Thomas is distinguished as not directly applicable to “next friend” issues. The respondents contest that the judgment correctly considered the pleadings, evidence, and law. The High Court ultimately dismisses the review petition, holding there is no error apparent on the face of the record and upholding the original order to appoint a next friend.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from the High Court of Kerala, challenging a 2016 MACT award in OPMV 483 of 2016. Annama John, the appellant, sustained serious injuries as a pillion rider when a car hit her motorcycle on 03.01.2016 near Vazhoor–Changanassery, leaving her with a comminuted fracture of the right tibia, knee contusions, and severe pain. The Tribunal held the car driver negligent and the insurer liable, but found a violation of policy conditions since the driver did not possess a valid license, allowing recovery of the paid compensation from the vehicle owner. The compensation awarded was Rs. 95,350 with 8% interest and costs. The appellant contends this amount under several heads is inadequate, and that the tribunal erred in not adopting a notional income under the Ramachandrappa principle, which would increase monthly earnings to Rs. 10,500 (instead of the Tribunal's Rs. 8,000) for 2016. The High Court re-evaluates the heads: loss of earnings is increased to Rs. 63,000 (noting 6 months of disablement rather than 4), pain and suffering to Rs. 50,000, and loss of amenities to Rs. 40,000, with Rs. 71,000 added in total. The appeal is allowed, with enhanced compensation, 7.5% interest on the enhanced amount, deposit within three months, and permission to recover the excess from the vehicle owner after payment, along with proportionate costs.
These three connected Land Acquisition Appeals (LAAs) arise from the 2011 judgment and decree in LAR Nos. 650/2008, 524/2009, and 564/2008 before the I AdditionaI Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging land acquisitions in Kudappanakunnu village for widening the Kowdiar–Peroorkada–Vazhayila road. The appellant contends that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the base rate at Rs. 5,84,054 per are, subsequently enhanced by the reference court to Rs. 22,00,000 per are, while seeking further enhancement and compensation for severance and injurious affection. Three parcels were acquired as a single plot; the claimant alleges the land was used as parking ground for a bar called Panchavadi, and that the lack of parking caused business losses not adequately compensated by the reference court. The appellant asserts that parcels on the same stretch of road held similar commercial value and should be valued uniformly, challenging a belting method used by the authorities that allegedly discriminates against landowners. The State and TRIDA contend that valuation should reflect location, category, and severance impact with proper evidence; the reference court’s award is to be maintained where justified. The High Court consolidates the appeals, setting aside the prior severance awards in light of contiguity doctrine, and ultimately fixes land value at Rs.28,00,000 per are for all parcels, declines severance/injurious affection due to lack of substantiation, denies delay interest, and permits statutory benefits except for delay-related interest per Amanullah Khan. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3788 OF 2025 This bail petition before the Kerala High Court concerns Babu, the accused in Crime No. 103/2024 of Vatanappilly Police Station, Thrissur, under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession and sale of 5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor near Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple at Puthiyangady on 01.11.2024. The petitioner contends that he has been in custody from 08.03.2025 and is prepared to comply with stringent conditions, asserting a right to a fair trial under Article 21 and highlighting the absence of criminal antecedents as per the public prosecutor's report. The State opposes bail but concedes no antecedents. The court examines whether bail can be granted while ensuring effective investigation and public interest. Relying on established jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and citing judgments such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court notes the need to balance rights with the gravity of the offence. After considering the facts—short period of custody, the absence of prior record, and the nature of the offence—the court grants bail with conditions: bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, the defendant's appearance before the IO as required, no travel without permission, no commission of similar offences, and other standard directions. The decision also references Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable doctrine. The order specifies that the observations relate only to the bail petition.
DBP Nos. 25 of 2023; 79 of 2023; 98 of 2023; 125 of 2023; 5 of 2024; 20 of 2024 This is a common order of the Kerala High Court disposing of multiple Suo Motu proceedings (DBP Nos. 25/2023, 79/2023, 98/2023, 125/2023 and connected 5/2024, 20/2024) concerning Valliyamkavu Devi Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitions arose from complaints of irregularities in Vazhipadu sales, corruption and malpractices by Devaswom staff, illegal private Puja stalls, and misappropriation concerns. The court traces the genesis to an Ombudsman inquiry and previous court directions, including orders directing boards and authorities to ensure price transparency, to exhibit Vazhipadu rates, and to prohibit unauthorised stalls. The bench directs detailed scrutiny through Ombudsman reports, and, after evaluating Report No. 4 of 2023 and subsequent materials, holds that there is a need for ongoing, rigorous oversight. The judges reiterate the Board’s fiduciary duty toward temples and devotees, invoking parens patriae and related safeguards, and emphasize that rates must be inclusive of Vazhipadu items. The order disposes of the four DBPs with a collective direction to implement findings, guard against exploitation, require vigilance, audit incomes, and prevent unauthorised entry or orders, while scheduling further proceedings on 22 May 2024 for Devaswom Bench oversight.
These revision petitions challenge a discharge order in CC No. 444/2010 (Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara) for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules. The accused—A. Chowdhuri and A. Batra—were alleged to have caused adulteration in a tea sample seized from a shop named KCS Traders, based on a Public Analyst’s report that iron fillings adulterated the article. The Magistrate dismissed the discharge application, prompting these CRL.R.P. petitions filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC. The petitioners argued that reliance on a Public Analyst’s report would be fatal to the prosecution if the analysis was not conducted in a laboratory defined under S.23(1A)(ee) of the Act; they invoked PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2010) and Rasheed v. Food Inspector (2016) to contend that where the laboratory is not defined by the statute, the entire prosecution collapses and the accused must be discharged. The Public Prosecutor contended that PepsiCo’s ratio is not to be treated as universally applicable in Kerala, given local appointments of Public Analysts under S.8 and Rule 4(9). The Kerala High Court, recognizing the ratio in PepsiCo and Rasheed, held that the sample was not analysed in a laboratory notified under S.23(1A)(ee), making the prosecution untenable. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed, the impugned order discharged, and the petitioners are discharged.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4201 OF 2025 Abdulla, the accused in Crime No.4/2025 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kasaragod, moves the Kerala High Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking bail. The offence relates to possession of 2.034 kg of ganja under the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 20(b)(ii)(B)). The petitioner argues for bail since he has been in custody since 07.02.2025 and is willing to comply with stringent conditions. He submits that the contraband quantity constitutes an intermediate category, and thus the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. The counsel relies on established bail jurisprudence that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting a prior similar case in 2017 and contending that the offence is serious and warrants continued custody or heavy conditions. The court considers the facts, notably the intermediate quantity, and accepts that bail can be granted subject to strict conditions. Relying on judgments that emphasize bail as the rule, the court allows the application with conditions: bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount; appearance before the IO; cooperation with investigation; no leaving India without court permission; and prohibition on committing similar offences. The order also notes the possibility of canceling bail if conditions are violated, relying on Anzar Azeez and related principles.
