Two accused, Dinesh Babu S and S A KANJANAMALA, seek bail in Crime No. 249/2025 of Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, before the Kerala High Court. The petitioners are charged with offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, arising from alleged misappropriation related to college admission fees for BSc Nursing. The prosecution contends that the victim paid Rs 3,25,000 for admission to Annai Meenakshi Nursing College, but the accused allegedly paid only Rs 1,00,000 to the actual college, withholding the balance. The petitioners submitted that they are willing to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Court observed that the sole allegation concerns non-refund of the balance amount, and whether any crime is attracted is a matter to be investigated; no merits conclusions were drawn. The bench reaffirmed the basic bail principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and later decisions (Siddharth v. State of UP; Manish Sisodia v. CBI), emphasizing personal liberty and due process. Bail is allowed with stringent conditions: petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, and, if arrest is contemplated, they shall be released on bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; they must not leave India, must cooperate with investigation, and must not commit similar offences; non-compliance may lead to cancellation of bail. The principles in Anzar Azeez are noted as applicable to this case.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4117 OF 2025 Ajith, a 26-year-old, is the petitioner in Bail Application No. 4117 of 2025 challenging an order in a case registered as Crime No.1102/2023 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, now pending as S.C.No.32/2024 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Kollam. He is accused of offences under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with the seizure of 728.42 grams of methamphetamine from the possession of the first accused at a coconut plantation. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are alleged to have conspired with the first accused to procure the contraband and financed its procurement for sale. The petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2023. The earlier bail application was disposed of with directions to file a fresh application within two weeks, and the Sessions Court later dismissed the fresh bail petition, noting conspiracy, the commercial quantity and flight risk. The High Court, relying on Apex Court decisions (Ankur Chaudhary; Nitish Adhikhar; Hasanujjaman; Shuaib A.S) and Kerala authority, reiterates that bail is the rule and jail the exception, emphasizing Article 21 and fair-trial rights. It ultimately allows the bail petition with stringent conditions: bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, cooperation with investigation, prohibition on leaving India without permission, and other standard conditions; a copy of the order is to be forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Kollam.
The writ petition challenges the debit freeze of Abdul Khadar C P’s Canara Bank account No. 1144104032619, imposed following a police requisition. The petitioner contends the freezing order is illegal, arbitrary and denies him access to his funds, especially since the disputed sum is Rs 9,000. The bank defends the freeze as a precautionary measure in the course of a criminal inquiry and cites the police requisition. The High Court anchors its decision in Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2024) and Nazeer K.T v Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024), which direct banks to confine freezes to the amount specified in police orders and require the police to inform whether continuation is necessary, within a defined period. It also relies on Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize timely reporting of seizures to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the consequences of delay. The judge ultimately directs the 1st respondent bank to confine the freeze to the amount mentioned in the police order, directs the police to inform whether freezing should continue and for what period, and requires action by the bank within the given timetable. If information is not provided, the petition may be renewed; judgment is to be served on relevant officers. The petition is disposed accordingly.
Anila Peter filed WP(C) No.6201 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent, Federal Bank Ltd., to lift the debit freeze placed on her bank account No.11530100182719. She asserts she is the lawful holder of the account and that the freezing was imposed by the bank pursuant to a requisition from the 4th respondent, the Additional Director General State Cyber Police. The petitioner contends that the freezing is arbitrary and causes hardship by restricting normal banking and daily transactions. The 3rd respondent bank submits that the lien was imposed for Rs.4,756 and that the freeze was only to the extent of the police requisition, asserting compliance with applicable law. The court relies on Dr.Sajeer v. RBI (2024) and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024) to articulate the guiding principles: freezing must be confined to the amount specified, police must inform banks within a prescribed period whether the freeze should continue and for what duration, and banks must act on such communications or risk further petitions. The judge directs the bank to confine the freeze accordingly, requires police to inform banks within eight months whether continuation is required, and sets a two‑month window for compliance reporting. The decision preserves the petitioner’s contentions; the writ petition is disposed with the directions set out in the judgment.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4013 OF 2025 PRAMOD K, aged 52, the petitioner-accused in Crime No.241/2025 of Aloor Police Station, sought bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges offences under sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, premised on deception by inviting the complainant to invest money with profit-sharing promises, which were allegedly not returned. The matter has featured ongoing investigation with the court previously directing the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer (IO) for interrogation to determine the necessity of custodial custody, with the officer to report back. On 01.04.2025 the petitioner reportedly gave a statement, and the Public Prosecutor indicated that custodial interrogation may be unnecessary, suggesting a renewal of appearance before the IO to complete the procedure. The court anchored its decision on established bail jurisprudence: bail as a general rule and jail as the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of UP, among others, to emphasise personal liberty and the distinction between the power to arrest and its justification (Joginder Kumar). The court also cites Manish Sisodia and Sushila Aggarwal to support proportional, conditional bail in economic offences. The order ultimately grants bail with stringent conditions, balancing investigation needs with the accused’s liberty.
This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, P. Shaji and Thankamma, challenging convictions under sections 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) and 498A IPC (cruelty) arising from the death of Shyla (the deceased) on 5 March 1996. The trial court found them guilty, sentencing five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine under 306 IPC, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under 498A IPC with a default sentence for non-payment of fine. The Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) III, Thalassery, confirmed the conviction on appeal, and the Sessions Court’s reappraisal also upheld the conviction and sentence. The High Court examined whether the cruelty alleged by the prosecution was proximate to the suicide and whether, in light of the deceased’s mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia) and prior history, liability under 306 IPC could be sustained. The court highlighted that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act creates a permissive presumption that must be weighed against all circumstances, not a mandatory rule. It concluded that the evidence did not establish a direct or proximate act of incitement by the petitioners causing the suicide, given the mental illness and other contributory factors. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed and the petitioners were acquitted, with bail bonds cancelled and they set at liberty.
This writ petition by T. N. Jayasankar, a senior professional with a long association with KITTS/DTPC, challenges a Government order (Ext.P22, 29.12.2022) denying regularisation of his service after more than a decade of service in sanctioned posts. The petitioner’s career spans roles including Special Officer assisting a DTPC study, Lecturer at KITTS/KIHMS, and later deputation as Secretary of DTPC Ernakulam, with periods of contract/late contractual appointments since 2002. KITTS/GO actions through Exts.P5–P7, P8 and P15 had proposed regularisation; the Cabinet reportedly approved permanent appointment with effect from joining, but Ext.P16 (01.05.2017) reversed this stance on the ground that regularisation would contravene Umadevi (Supra). The petitioner relies on the 2022 judgment in W.P.(C) 21336/2019 directing reconsideration and on Amarkand Rai and Vinod Kumar judgments to argue that long service in sanctioned posts and proper qualifications warrant regularisation even if some formal procedures were not perfect. The 1st respondent counters that the appointment was contractual and not a regular appointment, and that permitting regularisation would undermine Umadevi. The Court ultimately holds that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation, sets aside Ext.P22, and directs the Government to regularise and grant consequential benefits within three months, distinguishing the case from a rigid reading of Umadevi.
The petitioner, a devotee of Vallikeezhu Sree Bhagavathy Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, filed a writ under Article 226 seeking to quash Ext.P3 (15.09.2023), a Board order permitting construction of a structure described as a Thanthrimadom at Vallikeezhu temple, and a mandamus to constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) while restraining the current TAC. He also sought impleadment of additional respondents (6–18) and production of records. The respondents argued Ext.P3 related to a Santhimadom (storeroom), with inputs from the Sthapathy and Thantri supporting the construction; the petitioner alleged malpractices and non-compliance with rules governing Temple Advisory Committees. The Court directed appearances and perusal of records, noting the TAC’s operations under the Rules (bye-laws) framed under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, had been conducted in contravention of those bye-laws. The judgment underscores safeguards in the bye-laws to prevent malpractices, while recognizing the need for governance reforms at Vallikeezhu temple. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of by directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to decide on continuance of the 5th TAC and possible disqualification of its office bearers in accordance with the bye-laws, after hearing, within one month of certified copy of the judgment.
Shihab K P., aged 28, challenged Ext.P2 externment order dated 26-11-2024 under Section 15(1)(a) read with 15(5) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The externment, initially for one year, was curtailed to six months by the Advisory Board, with a subsequent monitoring regime for the remaining three months. The authorities, citing recurrent criminal involvement, classified him as a 'known goonda' under Section 2(o)(i) r/w 2(j) of the KAA(P) Act. Four cases at Nilambur police station (Nos. 934/2022, 111/2022, 1431/2023, 1100/2024) were catalogued, showing varied statuses (Convicted, Pending trial). The petitioner contends that Section 15(5) permits a fresh externment only after the earlier order ceases; the last prejudicial activity occurred on 29.08.2024, while the earlier order was still in force (ceasing only on 26.09.2024). Consequently, ext.P2 cannot be sustained, since there must be a live link between the last offence and the externment, and the two regimes (externment and detention) are distinct in impact as per Stalin C.V. v. State of Kerala and others. The petitioner also challenges the procedural delay and argues that the remedy lies in quashing Ext.P2 rather than imposing another restriction. The High Court ultimately concludes Ext.P2 is not sustainable and sets aside the order, allowing the petition.
This bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerns Mohanan @ KATTUVAKKEEL, accused in Crime No.195/2015 of Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki, charged with offences under Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) and 120(b) IPC for allegedly forging fake pattas of properties which they did not possess title to. The case, registered in 2015, had not resulted in the petitioner’s arrest, suggesting custodial interrogation may not be necessary. The prosecution contends forgery and conspiracy; the defence argues that even if all allegations are accepted, no offence is made out and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide any conditions. The Court acknowledges that the offences can be established through oral evidence and that custodial interrogation may not be required, emphasizing the general principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, among others, to underscore bail jurisprudence, and cites Joginder Kumar on the distinction between power to arrest and justification for arrest. It also references Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal to support conditional bail and monitoring. Ultimately, the judge grants bail with conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, not leaving India, no similar offences, with liberty for the IO to pursue investigations, and the jurisdiction to cancel bail if conditions are violated. Dated 2 April 2025, neutral citation 2025:KER:28291.
MACA No.1188-2013 & Cross Objection 63/2014 This Kerala High Court judgment concerns an appeal by KSRTC and a cross-objection arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The O.P. (M.V.) was filed under Section 166 by the legal heirs of Sunil, who died in a 2003 accident involving a KSRTC bus. The Tribunal treated the claim under Section 163A, awarding Rs.4,60,500. The dispute centers on the proper computation of compensation, particularly the notional income of the deceased and the deduction for personal expenses. KSRTC argued that the Tribunal erred by applying a notional income of Rs.3,000 per month and by not adopting a higher deduction for personal expenses (KSRTC pressed for 50% deduction) and beyond that, contended that Ramachandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236 supports a higher notional income (Rs.4,000 per month) and a higher ceiling for annual income under Section 163A (Rs.40,000). The petitioners/cross objectors, on the other hand, pressed for a higher notional income (Rs.4,000 per month) and challenged the Rs.40,000 ceiling, seeking greater compensation. The court ultimately relies on Ramachandrappa to justify the 40,000 annual notional income ceiling, applies a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, and computes base at Rs.4,80,000, to which Rs.2,000 for funeral and Rs.2,500 for loss of estate are added, totaling Rs.4,84,500. The appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is allowed in part, directing KSRTC to deposit Rs.4,84,500 with interest and to disburse per Tribunal’s ratio."
BA Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 This is a consolidated bail petition (BA Nos. 3991 and 3993 of 2025) filed by Sundar Menon in Crime Nos. 415/2025 and 533/2025 of Town West Police Station, Thrissur, seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court notes that the petitioner has been in custody in related cases with the same facts, and he had previously been released on bail under stringent conditions (Ext.P1). The petitioner contends that continued detention serves no purpose, especially given the purported common facts across several cases, and argues for bail to enable him to cooperate with investigations without the stigma of custodial incarceration. The State counters that the offences are serious, and custodial restraint may be necessary given the deposit-taking scheme alleged to have cheated numerous depositors. The court emphasizes bail as a rule rather than the exception and relies on established bail jurisprudence, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, among others, to reiterate that bail should be granted with appropriate conditions. After hearing, the court directs interrogation by the IO, and, depending on subsequent recommendations, grants bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes standard conditions including non-absenteeism, travel restrictions, and possible cancellation of bail for violations. The order reflects a cautious bail framework informed by constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC 2538 of 2024) concerning SiJo Jose, proprietor of a jewellery shop, CW18, who challenges an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, dated 21.12.2023 in CMP No.5227/2023 (CC No.493/2023), regarding custody of gold ornaments seized in Crime No.91/2023 (Aruvikkara PS). The theft allegedly involved ornaments from the de facto complainant’s house; some ornaments were recovered from the petitioner’s shop, and a portion of these belonged to the petitioner, leading to rival claims. The Magistrate initially dismissed CMP No.5227/2023; in Crl.M.C.7647/2023 this Court directed reconsideration. The present order cites Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, which held that valuable seized articles should not be retained unnecessarily and may be returned to the claimant during pendency of the trial, and Suresh Serve v. State of Kerala (2020) 3 KLT 395, which elaborates safeguards for releasing gold ornaments, depending on facts such as the existence of rival claimants and the nature of the articles. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order and allowed release of item Nos. 1 and 3 in T. No.118/2023 to the petitioner under conditions: a detailed report, signed photographs, and permission to use the stock-in-trade for business. The decision follows the foregoing precedents and aims to balance trial integrity with the petitioner’s legitimate possession during pendency, especially where ornaments are stock in trade.
Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed by accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.529/2025 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam. The petition contends for bail on the ground that, even if the entire case facts are accepted, there is no serious overt act attributable to the petitioners beyond kicking the defacto complainant, and they are ready to comply with stringent conditions. The FIR alleges offences under sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of BNSS 2023; however, the only non-bailable element is 118(1). The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but notes no criminal antecedents in the IO report. The Court observes that no serious overt act is attributed to the petitioners and that the circumstances of the case permit bail with conditions. It relies on established bail principles, citing Chidambaram (rule of bail), Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez to emphasize personal liberty and the distinction between power to arrest and its exercise. Ultimately the Court allows the application, imposing stringent conditions, including appearance before the IO within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, cooperation with the investigation, restriction on leaving India, and the possibility of arrest if warranted. The order clarifies that recoveries may be effected under the Supreme Court's direction and that the principle applies for this case as well.
This bail application concerns Adithya Krishnan, accused in Crime No. 4/2025 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta, charged under Sections 316 and 318 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleges the de facto complainant’s Bolero was rented to a company and subsequently, with the assistance of the second accused, re-rented to a third accused without consent, resulting in a loss of Rs. 8.4 lakh. The case records that the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer (IO) following a prior order directing interrogation and possible custodial investigation. The court previously directed interrogation within two weeks and stayed arrest until the next posting date, with the option to arrest if necessary after further inquiry. The learned Public Prosecutor (PP) later indicated that the petitioner’s statement had already been recorded, suggesting no further custodial interrogation was required, though the IO could require reconvened interrogation if needed. The bail order relies on established bail jurisprudence: bail is the rule and jail the exception; personal liberty is fundamental; arrest is not mandatory where no compelling reasons exist; and even grave economic offences do not automatically bar bail. The court grants bail with stringent conditions, balancing fair trial rights with investigative needs, citing notable Supreme Court and Kerala decisions.
BA No.3996 of 2025, a bail application under BNSS 2023, concerns six petitioners in Crime No.74/2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleges offences under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296(b), 115(2), and 118(1), arising from a year-end scuffle near Malarvadi Arts and Sports Club that allegedly led to assault on the defacto complainant, his son Nandu, his friend Shaji, and Abhishek; a chain and mobile phone belonging to Nandu were reportedly lost. The petitioners submit that the incident involved competing narratives and that it is a case of “case and counter case,” with no criminal antecedents. They express willingness to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but notes the absence of antecedents in the IO’s report. The court notes two versions exist; it cannot resolve veracity at the bail stage, and emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Relying on precedents including Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v State of UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, it grants bail with stringent conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, release on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperation with investigation; no travel outside jurisdiction without court permission; no commission of a similar offense; and a condition that the observations are for deciding this bail application. Bail can be canceled for violations. The order is issued by a Single Judge, P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
Criminal Appeal No.1606 of 2007 This is a criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the appellants Ashokan and K. Madhu challenging their conviction in SC No.677/2004 before the Kasargod Court of Session. The prosecution alleged that on 08 May 2002, at about 5:00 PM, while PW6, a CPI(M) worker, was driving his autorickshaw with PW5 as passenger, two Congress sympathisers (A1 and A2) emerged from a bus named Pournami, and attacked PW6 with swords, stabbing him and causing injuries to his left thigh. The investigation led to a charge sheet for offences including 307 read with 34 IPC; however, the trial court convicted them only under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with compensation to PW6 under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The first appellant died in 2011, abating his substantive sentence but not the fine; no defence evidence was adduced. On appeal, the High Court examined issues such as lack of weapon recovery, the medical evidence, and alleged bias in witnesses (PW5 and PW7), and the non-examination of the bus driver and passengers. The court found PW5 and PW7 credible, supported by medical evidence, and held that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, with the sentence of A2 intact. It also noted that the non-examination of certain witnesses does not undermine the prosecution case and that the weapon’s recovery, though not proven, does not defeat the conviction under 324/34 IPC.
This writ petition in the Kerala High Court concerns a pregnant woman, approximately 23–24 weeks into gestation, who seeks medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) on grounds of severe mental and emotional distress, risk to her health, and her stated separation and divorce proceedings from her husband. The Court begins with a broad articulation of bodily autonomy as the core, foundational to gender equality and a constitutional right, emphasizing that the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy is primarily the woman’s. The petitioner contends that continuing the pregnancy would endanger her mental and physical health, and that, under the MTP Act, particularly Section 3(2)(b) read with the MTP Rules, she qualifies for termination if two registered medical practitioners opine that continued pregnancy would entail grave injury to her health. The petition leverages the broader interpretive approach urged in X v. Principal Secretary (supra) to include a change in marital status within Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, thereby extending the eligibility of termination to her circumstances of separation and ongoing divorce proceedings. The Court initially considers a Medical Board evaluation for physiological and psychological assessment, following a suo motu order to anonymize the petitioner and refer to a Board. The Board’s report indicates that continuing the pregnancy risks the mother’s mental health, while the fetus is physiologically normal. The Court ultimately holds that a termination is permissible before 24 weeks given the circumstances, and directs the termination to occur at Ernakulam Medical College Hospital, with informed consent and appropriate medical protocols, while recognizing that consent of the husband is not required. The judgment underscores bodily autonomy, dignity, and the purposive, beneficial interpretation of MTP provisions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 BNSS filed by Jithin Das, an accused in Crime No. 207/2025 of Palakkad Town South Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The petitioner claims harassment and seeks bail, having appeared before the investigating officer under Section 35(3) BNSS. The respondent Public Prosecutor argues that the investigation has been thorough and that, if necessary, the petitioner can be directed to cooperate; arrest may follow, in which case bail with strict conditions could be granted. The court frames the well-settled bail principle: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other cases. It reiterates that personal liberty is fundamental (Siddharth v. State of UP) and clarifies that arrest is not mandatory if there is no credible reason to believe the accused will abscond or impede investigations (Joginder Kumar). The court also notes that even grave economic offences do not automatically bar bail (Manish Sisodia) and that an accused may be investigated on bail (Sushila Aggarwal) with extant safeguards. Ultimately, the application is allowed with conditions: the petitioner must appear for interrogation within two weeks; if arrest is contemplated, bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; comply with directions and not leave the country; and can be cancelled on violation. The order is a single-judge decision by P.V. KunhikRishnan, J.
Petitioner Sajeer M., aged 43, S/o Moosakunju, Edavilakathu Veedu, Kondodi, Mancodu, Kummin, Kollam, is an accused in Crime No. 27/2025 of the Chadayamangalam Excise Range Office, Kollam, facing allegations under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of 3.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. He approaches the High Court seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The State opposes bail, noting a separate case under Section 13 of the Abkari Act, which is compoundable. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence of involvement in a serious offence and that the petitioner is willing to comply with stringent conditions. The court recalls the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and later cases such as Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, to emphasize the importance of personal liberty and timely trial. It notes the absence of grave antecedents and that conditions can safeguard the investigation. The bail is therefore allowed with directions: the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, he shall be released on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not leave India without court permission; and the Prosecution and the victim may seek cancellation if conditions are violated. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez to reinforce the approach. The bail is granted accordingly.
