This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns guardianship for V. Mohan, a businessman who, after brain surgery, remains in a coma. The petitioners — Sudha V. Mohan (wife) and her children, joined by Mohan's younger brother K. Sudarsanan — seek appointment of a guardian to manage Mohan's person and property, including the operation of his bank accounts, to meet treatment costs and day-to-day sustenance. Mohan was admitted on 09.03.2021 with a large intracranial lesion; surgery left him comatose. Though hemodynamically stable, he cannot manage his affairs. The court had previously directed a Medical Board to assess him, which opined he is in a comatose state. Relying on the precedent in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019) (1) KLT 801, the petition seeks appointment of a guardian for Mohan’s assets. The Division Bench guidelines cited require disclosure of property, neurological assessment, home visits by Revenue authorities, and the guardian being a close relative, with periodic reporting and safeguards against misuse. While there is no statute specifically governing comatose guardianship, the court adopts the government guidelines on limited guardianship. The petition is disposed of by directing an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for limited guardianship within three months; during this period, the first petitioner may operate Mohan’s bank accounts with concurrence of other petitioners to secure treatment funds.
Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 172 of 2020) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam arises from a suit filed by Beena S against three defendants alleging coercion and fraud in registering Ext. B2, a sale deed alleged to be in favour of the first defendant for Rs. 20 lakh. The trial court declared Ext. B2 void and canceled it, granted a perpetual injunction, and dismissed the counter-claim. The defendants appealed, contending that the sale was executed of the plaintiff’s free will, with true consideration of Rs. 85,35,000 reflected in Ext. B1, and that the plaintiff had failed to establish coercion beyond allegations. They argued that material witnesses accompanied the plaintiff to the registration and that acts like payment of a substantial cash component and discharge of a bank liability were properly handled; possession transfer and documentary proof were properly executed in accordance with law, including sections of the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, and Stamp Act. The plaintiff's case relied on alleged threats, misappropriation, and coercion; however, the appellate court reweighed evidence and concluded there was no credible proof of coercion or illegality. It allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s decree, dismissed the suit, and allowed the counter-claim in part by directing removal of belongings from the plaint schedule building within three months, failing which the first defendant may execute the decree. No costs.
The petitioner Kishore Krishnan is the sole accused in Crime No.1484 of 2024 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam, facing offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS) sections 137(2), 74, 64(2)(k), 64(2)(m), 64 and 351(1) and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) sections 7, 8, 4(1), 3(a), 6(1), 5(k) and 5(b). The allegations relate to a 21.10.2024 incident where the victim, a minor, was allegedly lured into an auto-rickshaw, taken to a secluded place, kissed and raped, with prior incident on 12.09.2024 and threats to not disclose. The accused has been in custody since 25.01.2025. The petition for bail, after a prior bail petition in 2536/2025 was dismissed, re-emerges with the claim that he is willing to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court notes the well-established bail jurisprudence (bail is the rule, jail is the exception) and, relying on Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia and other authorities, proceeds to grant bail with stringent conditions. The order cites Anzar Azeez for applicability. Ultimately, bail is allowed on bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no leaving the country, non-commission of similar offences, and reservations that the order’s observations are for deciding this bail petition.
This Kerala High Court revision concerns whether shifting the landlord's existing business from the first floor to the ground floor triggers Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as opposed to Section 11(3). The revision petition arises from Premalatha, the landlord, challenging the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s concurrent findings that the landlady’s need could be considered under Section 11(8) since she occupies part of the building and requires additional accommodation for her own business use. Jameela, the tenant, contends that the relief sought is not bonafide and that the matter was not properly considered, with malafides pleaded in the counter statement. Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that if the landlord’s objective is to shift the entire business from the first floor to the ground floor, Section 11(3) would be the applicable provision rather than 11(8); malafide allegations were also raised. The court examines the distinction between Sections 11(3) and 11(8), reiterating that the provisions are mutually exclusive and that the landlord may choose the appropriate provision depending on the factual matrix. It cites Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy to emphasize exclusivity, and distinguishes Welfare Stationery on grounds of factual differences. Ultimately, the revision petition is dismissed, but the tenant is granted six months to vacate on conditions including an undertaking and arrears payment, with no costs. The decision underscores case-by-case evaluation of bonafide need and the balancing of landlord's rights with tenant protections.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.M.C. 926 of 2023) challenging an order dated 24 January 2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery, in CMP No.2895 of 2022 in CC No.1584 of 2016. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 face charges under IPC sections 498A and 324, read with section 34. After closure of prosecution evidence and subsequent examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners sought to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, as a defence witness to establish bias in the investigation and custodial torture of Petitioner No.1. The Trial Court rejected the prayer, ruling that summoning would protract the trial and would not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. The High Court, interpreting section 243 Cr.P.C. and Article 21, held that the accused is entitled to lead defence evidence and that denial of this right amounts to denial of fair trial. It relied on Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampooram, Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, and Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan to emphasize the accdused’s right to defence and the limited discretion of the Court in summoning witnesses. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to issue summons to the defence witness. The decision underscores the balance between fair trial and trial efficiency, affirming the accused’s right to defence while ensuring ends of justice.
The petitioner, M.M. Joseph, sought an environmental clearance (EC) for quarrying on 0.5886 hectares of land at Pindimana in Ernakulam district. After obtaining a letter of intent (LOI) from the Senior Geologist on 23 November 2017, he submitted an EC application to the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) on 22 February 2018. The DEIAA/DEAC recommended grant of EC on 3 May 2018 (Ext. P4). However, no decision was communicated for 132 days, until 13 September 2018, when the National Green Tribunal (NGT) passed Ext. P5. The NGT directed SEAC/SEIAA reconsideration for areas of 0–5 hectares, and later Ext. P6 reiterated this. The petitioner argued that under paragraph 8 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA 2006), failure to communicate constitutes a deemed grant/denial, such that by 22 June 2018 the EC should be deemed granted. He contended his rights crystallized and that the regulator was obliged to issue an EC certificate for subsequent regulatory steps (license, lease, etc.). Respondents relied on Exts. P5–P6 and argued that DEAC’s competence and the SEAC must evaluate anew. The court ultimately held that the deeming provision applied, that DEAC acts were protected by the de facto doctrine, quashed Ext. P13, and directed SEIAA to issue a Deemed EC within two weeks of certified copy of the judgment.
This High Court of Kerala Criminal Misc. Case challenges Annexure A1, the notice/order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kasaragod under sections 107/111 of the Cr.P.C. in MC No. 9/2021. The petitioner contends that Annexure A1 does not disclose the substance of the information received or the basis for the satisfaction required under Section 107 Cr.P.C., making the order unsustainable. The court examines the issue through the prism of precedents such as Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another (2009 (4) KHC 929), Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2014 KHC 522), and Bejoy K.V v. State of Kerala and Another (2015 (5) KHC 507). The judgments emphasize that an order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. must clearly reveal the substance of the information, the amount of the bond, the term, and the number and class of sureties, to enable the accused to defend. The court reiterates that merely because a person is an accused or a crime is registered against him does not automatically justify invoking Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. Proceedings must be anchored in imminent breach of peace and be backed by precise information. In light of these rulings, Annexure A1 is found to be non-compliant with the statutory scheme, and the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed, quashing Annexure A1 and the resulting proceedings against the petitioner.
WP(C) Nos.28461/2018, 2263/2019, 14430/2019, 14439/2019, 13142/2018, 15921/2018, 16113/2018, 16405/2018, 17493/2018, 17940/2018, 18674/2018, 18775/2018, 18888/2018, 20435/2018, 20507/2018, 20508/2018, 20600/2018, 20808/2018, 23309/2018, 24974/2018, 26001/2018, 22941/2019, 27756/2018, 29337/2018, 29922/2018, 31146/2018, 31141/2018, 31132/2018, 32037/2018, 34912/2018, 37103/2018, 38643/2018 This batch of writ petitions, heard by Justice Devan Ramachandran, concerns the regularisation and subsequent termination of provisional empaneled KSRTC employees who had completed long service. The petitioners challenge KSRTC’s 2018 order terminating their services on the ground that many had already obtained favourable judgments and that Government orders and Supreme Court directions ought to govern regularisation. The court traces a bipartite pay revision framework (2008) and government orders (22.12.2011; 21.11.2013) laying down conditions for regularisation, notably ten years of service and 120 days of duty per year as on 21.12.2011. The petitioners contend that these conditions should apply retrospectively and that individual judgments granting regularisation should bind. The KSRTC, supported by the Government Pleader, maintains that Supreme Court directives (Civil Appeals Nos. 4435-4438/2017) permit imposition of conditions for regularisation and that Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) is distinguishable or overruled. The judgment recognises that Supreme Court declarations bind all, holds that the impugned terminations require reversal, and directs KSRTC to hold hearings, admit documents, and determine eligibility for regularisation (ten years of service and 120 days per year) by a structured timeline. Pension and superannuation benefits are addressed for eligible cases.
The petitioner, N. Pramod Sibi, challenged the termination of a works contract tender at KINFRA Apparel Park, Thumba, arguing there was no concluded contract and that the forfeiture of his performance security and the demand for additional liability were invalid. He had submitted a tender for Rectification of walkways (cable trench cover slabs) Phase II and was selected as the lowest tenderer. Ext.P2 issued as a work order imposed conditions, including a 5% performance security deposit (Rs. 2,18,127) and an additional performance guarantee (Rs. 2,05,569) to be provided via a bank guarantee, and execution of an agreement within four weeks. Although he furnished the performance deposit, he failed to furnish the bank guarantee for the additional amount; he did submit fixed deposits in lieu. No signed agreement was ever executed, and the work site was never handed over. Ext.P3 terminated the contract, warning that the EMD would be forfeited and costs would be recovered. The core issue is whether a concluded contract existed; Ext.P2 alone cannot create a contract without an executed agreement and acceptance in absolute terms. The court relied on Padia Timber Company, South Eastern Coalfields, Gobardhan Dass and related authorities to hold that acceptance must be absolute; there was no concluded contract. The writ petition was allowed: Exts.P3 and P6 were quashed; it was declared there was no concluded contract, and the treasury fixed deposit of Rs.2,18,127 was to be returned within three weeks. The judgment underscores the necessity of a signed agreement for tender-based concessions and for forfeiture of security deposits.
The writ petition challenges Ext P3, an order passed by the first respondent suspending the petitioner’s heavy driving licence on the ground of alleged overload in a goods vehicle. The petitioner, a driver holding Ext P1 (valid until 2027), argues that Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not empower licensing authorities to suspend licences for overload and that Enforcing Officers have usurped original licensing powers without territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner asserts illegal and unstated grounds for Ext P3 and seeks quashing. The respondents contend that the petitioner did carry overload, evidenced by weighment certificate and other materials, and that Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 defines nuisance or danger to the public to include overload. They rely on directives in Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala (2019) 5 KHC 414 and argue a show-cause notice was issued (10.03.2023). On examining the e-challan and weighment records, the court finds no illegality in Ext P3 and clarifies it is not adjudicating the merits, but permits the petitioner to challenge Ext P3 via an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act. The court also stays any licence revocation only until the appeal is decided.
This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of Vijayan, who died following a motor-vehicle collision on 12 May 2009 when his motorcycle KL-5/Y 8422 was struck by a bus KL-3/D 3189 driven rashly. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, awarded ₹7,11,000 as total compensation in O.P(M.V) No.845/2009 (awarded 15.03.2012). The appellants, petitioners before the Tribunal, challenge the quantum, arguing the deceased’s income was undervalued. Exts. A6 (Gram Panchayat statement) and A7 (Membership certificate) are cited to show higher earnings, and the petitioners urge ₹8,000 per month as income, with 40% addition for future prospects. They rely on the Constitutional Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi to contend for enhanced compensation under heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, calculating loss of dependency with a higher consolidation of amounts. They request additional sums for transportation and clothing, and argue that personal expenses should be deducted at 1/4th rather than 1/3rd. They assert that legal heirs are not entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection or for pain and suffering, yet seek re-assessment under other heads. The respondents contest the quantum but admit liability; the insurer argues policy violations and that the driver lacked a valid license. The High Court reassesses the award: fixes higher monthly income, applies 40% future prospects, uses a 16 multiplier, and awards ₹11,18,550 as additional compensation with 7.5% interest, directing deposit by the insurer and recovery from the driver/owner. The MACA is allowed with modified relief and directions for payment and deposit.
CRL.MC NO. 3395 OF 2023 & connected cases This batch of Criminal Misc. Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 3395 of 2023 and connected matters) before the Kerala High Court, arises out of C.C. Nos. 135/2012, 146/2012, 122/2012, 80/2012, 81/2012, 103/2012 and related proceedings at Pathanamthitta Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein the petitioners (husband and wife accused Nos. 1 and 5 in C.C. No. 135/2012) faced indictment for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and to be represented by counsel during trial. The trial court had rejected those applications. Relying on decisions of earlier Single Judges and on Bhanujan v. Jayabhanu and other precedents (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd.; Sarath v. State of Kerala; Moosa Pattupura v. State of Kerala), the Court held that Section 317(1) Cr.P.C empowers a judge to dispense with personal attendance and that courts should ordinarily be liberal in allowing Section 205 exemptions unless personal appearance is indispensable. Following this approach, the Court allowed the petitions, set aside several earlier orders, and granted the petitioners permanent exemption from appearance under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C, with representation by counsel at trial. Petitioners must appear for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C and for judgment, with 205(2) remaining applicable. The orders disposing of these CRLs are accordingly issued, and the petitions are disposed of.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P5, an order of the State Information Commission directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to furnish details of the amounts paid to invigilators at examinations conducted by the KPSC in two designated institutions, free of cost under the RTI Act. The 2nd respondent had sought copies of the acquittance roll showing payments to invigilators; while some information was supplied, the KPSC claimed the acquittance register was not a permanent record and that the information had already been forwarded to the Accountant General. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, and Ext.P5 mandated disclosure, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court on grounds that RTI disclosures beyond enumerated items would undermine administrative efficiency. Relying on Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the petitioners argued that indiscriminate demands are counterproductive and could burden administration. The Respondents contended a Division Bench decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, later affirmed by the Supreme Court, requiring disclosure in similar cases. The High Court, echoing the Supreme Court’s reasoning (including the fiduciary relationship in PSC–examiner interactions and the need to balance transparency with fiduciary duties), held that the KPSC stood in a principal-agent/fiduciary relationship with invigilators, thus non-disclosure is justified for the acquittance details. Consequently, the petition is allowed; Ext.P5 is quashed and the KPSC is not obligated to disclose the acquittance roll details under RTI Act, 2005.
This High Court of Kerala, sitting in a single-judge bench, hears OP (DRT) No. 426 of 2022 arising from a challenge to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, order dismissing an interlocutory application seeking to implead the petitioner in a securitisation application filed by the second respondent bank. The petitioner, Sreedhanya Babu, claims to have executed a sale agreement for a property mortgaged with HDFC Bank and asserts that he paid Rs 2 crore to settle a separate liability, with the understanding that the property would be conveyed to him. He has also asserted ongoing suit O.S. No. 231/2019 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and an injunction in that suit. The bank counters that the petitioner has no locus standi and is not a proper or necessary party to the Tribunal proceedings, and thus was rightly not impleaded. The alternate 3rd respondent adds that the plaint in O.S. 231/2019 refers to another property and that even with Ext. P1, the petitioner was aware of the mortgage, so no relief is warranted. The petitioner points to Ext. P3 ( encumbrance certificate) showing attachment. The court emphasises that post-mortgage attachments do not affect securitisation proceedings, citing Keechery Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar and Travancore Dewasom Board v. Deputy Examiner Local Fund Audit. Concluding, the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the impleading petition is upheld and the original petition is dismissed.
WP(C).No.16553 OF 2020(T) The petitioner, Valsa P.V., is a Lower Primary School Assistant at Fathima Matha Lower Primary School, Pushpagiri, Thrissur. While in service, she was removed due to a division fall during two periods: 15.07.1995 – 14.09.1998 and 12.12.1998 – 31.05.1999. This period was later regularised as non-duty and, according to the Government, will not count for service, including pension. She contends that since Ext.P1 shows her appointment and she is due to retire on 31.05.2021, these spells should be counted for pension even though they are not eligible for other service benefits. She cites Muhammed Kunhi C.M. v. State of Kerala & others (2011 (2) KHC 655) and Sabu Mathew v. State of Kerala & others (2017 (5) KHC 120) to argue that a break in service arising from staff reductions must be counted for pension. Ext.P3, an order denying pension, is challenged, and Ext.P4 remains pending. The respondents’ counter affidavit explains that the period was treated as non-duty, not pension-qualifying, supported by GO(Rt) 796/07/G.Edn; GO(P) 113/16/Fin; and GO(MS) 401/2019/Fin clarifying that regular/broken spells prior to 10.08.2018 are generally not pensionable except in provisional/leave-vacancy contexts. The court notes that the core issue is whether the break in regular service should be pensionable, not whether provisional service can count, and directs reconsideration in light of the cited judgments and the 2019 clarifications, with hearing, and a decision within three months. The petition is thus allowed to the extent of this reconsideration.
Bibin Mary Abraham v. Prince V. Elias concerns the custody and guardianship of three minor children in a Kerala High Court case arising from the Family Court at Thiruvalla. The mother-petitioner had sought guardianship and custody of the eldest son in O.P.(G&W) No.320 of 2021, while the father-respondent counter-claimed custody of the younger two. With the mother abroad pursuing postgraduate studies since September 2022, the Family Court passed Ext.P8 on 31 March 2023 granting interim custody of the younger children to the father, subject to conditions aimed at preserving interaction among all three children and ensuring education. The elder son remained with the father in Panvel, while the younger two were with the mother in Thiruvalla, assisted by maternal grandparents in her absence. The petitioner challenged the order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, noting the welfare principle, quoted Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2022 SC 3511) and relied on Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair (2016 (1) KLJ 266) and Vishnu P. Naick v. Nayana (2022 (7) KHC 457). It confirmed Ext.P8 subject to a modification: if the mother is available in her native place, the father should entrust custody to her at Thiruvalla for up to ten days, so long as schooling is not disrupted. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges two Family Court orders in O.P.(G&W) No.244/2022 and I.A. No.4/2022 in the same proceeding, concerning interim custody of a 2½-year-old child and an accompanying settlement purportedly entered before a counsellor. The petitioner alleges coercion and misrepresentation in Ext.P2, contending the compromise terms are unworkable and not binding, while the respondent argues that the Family Court approved the settlement and that there is no occasion to reopen a matter awaiting interim custody orders. The Family Court had, by Ext.P7 (26.11.2022), dismisseda4/2022, and by Ext.P8 (15.12.2022) disposed of I.A.1/2022 in terms of the compromise. The High Court, in a two-judge bench, finds that the compromise terms are not specific or clear and emphasizes that custody decisions must prioritize the welfare of the child, especially given the child’s tender age. Citing Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar (AIR 2022 SC 476), the court reiterates that when custody is disturbed, visitation rights are typically granted to preserve the child’s welfare and the company of both parents. Consequently, Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside, and the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to reconsider IA No.1/2022 afresh in O.P.(G&W) No.244/2022, taking into account the compromise dated 11.04.2022 and the child’s welfare.
Rajeesh Panakkool challenges a preliminary order issued under sections 110 and 111 Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Taliparamba, in MC No. 359/2022, described as a show cause notice issued in relation to a bond under section 107 Cr.P.C. to preserve public peace. The petitioner contends Annexure-A1 does not disclose the substance of the information received or the basis on which the Magistrate formed satisfaction for proceeding under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C., and hence the order is void. The petitioner relies on judgments of this Court in Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another; Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others; and Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala and Another, arguing that an order under Secs. 110/111 Cr.P.C. must spell out the substance of the information, the amount and duration of the bond, the nature and class of security, and the necessity to set forth the information so that the accused can show cause. The State Public Prosecutor counters that Annexure-A1 is a valid order and that the proceedings should not be quashed, as the information was conveyed to the petitioner and the show-cause rights remain intact. On scrutiny, the High Court notes that Annexure A1 does not narrate the substance of information or the basis of satisfaction and, following Bejoy K.V. and the Moidu line, holds that the order is unsustainable. Consequently, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed, and Annexure A1 along with the ensuing proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
On 6 March 2023, the Kerala High Court (Single Judge Devan Ramachandran) heard MACA No.191/2023, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.162/2018 at Kalpetta. Nishad K.K., the appellant, was injured after being struck by a vehicle driven rashly and negligently on a public road; he required hospitalization for 19 days. The Tribunal awarded Rs 3,10,600 in total, well short of the claimed Rs 6.5 lakh (limited to Rs 5 lakh) and the appellant's submission that the notional income should be higher than the Tribunal's Rs 8,000 per month. The respondent insurer contended there was no error in the award and that the disability computation had been properly accepted (Ext.C1). The High Court, examining the evidence, noted the Tribunal's reliance on Rs 8,000/month due to lack of evidence, but invoked the principle in Ramachandrappa v. Manager to set a minimum notional income of Rs 11,000/month for 2017, given the unascertainable income at the time. The court also found the injuries serious—Type II A open fracture of the left leg and other multiple injuries—and enhanced damages for Pain and Suffering to Rs 1,00,000. It increased the Loss of Earning Power to Rs 99,000 and Loss of Earning to Rs 55,000, with the same 5% disability. The appeal was partly allowed; interest at 8% from filing until realization, with 337 days excluded, and costs on the enhanced amounts were awarded, and deposit directed within two months.
This bail application, filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, concerns Sarun Sajeevan, accused in Crime No.6/2023 of the Thripunithura Excise Range Office, facing charges under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, 1985 for allegedly possessing 2.75 kg of ganja on 01.06.2023. The petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer on 20.02.2025 and seeks bail, offering to comply with any conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, contending that the petitioner is involved in another case with the same facts. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations but notes that the contraband quantity is an intermediate quantity, so the rigour of Section 37 NDPS may not be attracted. It also considers the period of detention in custody and applies the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Relying on judgments from the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court — Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement — the court holds that bail can be granted with stringent conditions when appropriate. The order also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, stating its principles apply. Ultimately, the court grants bail with conditions: bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, restriction on travel, prohibition on committing similar offences, and the right to cancel bail if conditions are violated.
