BAIL APPL. NO. 4577 OF 2025 Muhammed Faizal, the petitioner, approaches the Kerala High Court in Bail Application No. 4577 of 2025 seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with Crime No. 273/2025 of Ottappalam Police Station, registered for alleged offences under BNSS Sections 126(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution alleges that on 17 March 2025, at about 6:40 pm, while the de facto complainant was riding a motorcycle, the petitioner allegedly overtook, restrained him, and used a churika knife in an attempt to stab him, causing injuries to the right shoulder, right underarm and the back of the left palm. The petitioner contends that the incident did not occur as alleged; his father was assaulted by the complainant, and Annexure-2 is the OP ticket from the hospital; he maintains no criminal antecedents. The counsel for the petitioner urges that bail should be granted with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor concedes no antecedents but emphasizes the seriousness of the injuries and the allegations. The court notes the petitioner’s custody since 17.03.2025 and the absence of antecedents, and, citing established bail jurisprudence emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Chidambaram P., Jalaluddin Khan), as well as guidance from Manish Sisodia and Anzar Azeez, grants bail with conditions. The decision underscores the principle that even serious offences may warrant bail with safeguards to ensure fair trial and continued investigation.
The appellant, Pramodan@Pramod, filed MACA No. 1718 of 2019 challenging an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 issued by the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV) No. 710/2017. The accident occurred on 24.10.2016 when the KSRTC bus allegedly driven rashly struck the appellant, a security officer, resulting in the loss of his right leg below the knee and disabling him from employment. He had claimed a compensation of Rs 79,42,000 (ultimately capped at Rs 50,00,000 by the Tribunal). The insurer and KSRTC contested liability, arguing lack of rash driving and that liability would be limited to policy terms; the bus had valid insurance. Evidence included PW1 and Exts A1–A9; Ext A10 (salary certificate) was marked but not relied upon. The Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs 10,000 per month (rejecting Ext A10) and applied an 11x multiplier, with 80% functional disability, and a 10% uplift for future prospects (per Pranay Sethi) leading to a notional figure of Rs 11,550 per month. The award included Rs 12,19,680 for permanent disability, and other heads (loss of earnings, bystander expenses, nourishment, medicals, etc.), totaling Rs 18,87,906. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 19,87,586, while holding the fault allocation and insurer’s liability subject to policy, and directed deposit within 60 days. The appeal was partly allowed with costs.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C. No. 70 of 2023) heard by a Single Judge, arising from a complaint (Annexure A1) in CC 3235/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences connected with cheques issued by the petitioner in the course of a business arrangement with the complainant, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. The petitioner, Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd., sought to quash the complaint under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the alleged debt was evidenced by three cheques totaling Rs. 5,89,890 each, and that subsequent payments totaling Rs. 40 lakh, effected by demand drafts on 08.06.2015, discharged the liability; hence the substratum of the case no longer existed and continued prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The respondent state and the complainant Asianet contested, arguing that bank remittance entries do not conclusively prove discharge of the specific cheque amounts without bank management evidence, and that the liability might persist. The court anchors its reasoning in the Nagawwa framework (Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976) and a lineage of decisions that set out when a magistrate’s process can be quashed, emphasizing that quashing should be sparing and not stifle legitimate prosecutions. After considering the allegations on record and the need for factual examination at trial, the court held that the petition to quash is meritless and dismissed the Cr.M.C. petition, thereby allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. The decision reiterates the established jurisprudence governing when to intervene in criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 329 of 2018, heard an appeal by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (insurer of the KSRTC bus) challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award indemnifying the legal heirs of Miss Kesiya Francis for a fatal road traffic collision on 05.12.2014 involving a KSRTC bus and a motorcycle. The Tribunal had held the KSRTC driver liable for negligence and directed the KSRTC insurer to pay compensation. The insurer argues that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the motorcycle rider (6th respondent Benny Sadher) and not due to the KSRTC bus driver, and that Ext. A7 charge sheet was wrongly interpreted as against the bus driver. It contends the police charge sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence only against the rider, and there is no material to prove bus-driver negligence. The High Court agrees Ext. A7 was misread, noting the charge sheet was actually against the rider and that the Tribunal failed to consider this discrepancy. Relying on Pazhaniammal, the court acknowledges charge sheets are prima facie evidence of negligence but can be rebutted by evidence. The court accepts the motorcycle rider’s negligence and holds the 7th respondent (National Insurance Co.) liable to indemnify. It recalculates compensation using Pranay Sethi principles (40% future prospects, 50% personal expenses deduction, multiplier 18) and brings the total to Rs.25,87,872, directing deposit within two months and circular remittances, with no costs.
This is a bail application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, by Ananthapadmanabhan A.S., the second accused in Crime No.1370/2024 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The crime involves alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 296(b) and 110 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arising from an incident on 18.12.2024 near a ration shop where the first and second accused allegedly assaulted and restrained the complainant, resulting in facial injuries and a possible stab attempt with a broken spring-knife. The trial court had earlier dismissed two bail applications; the Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 118(2) of BNS is deleted, leaving 118(1) and 110 for consideration. The High Court, noting that 118(1) carries a maximum punishment of three years, and reiterating the well-established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, proceeded to assess whether bail should be granted. Citing Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court favored liberty and granted bail with stringent conditions. The conditions include appearance before the IO within two weeks, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, restriction from leaving India, non-commission of similar offences, and potential cancellation of bail if conditions are violated. The order emphasizes that the observations are limited to deciding this bail application.
This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges Ext.P20, a letter issued by the District Registrar (General), Malappuram. The petitioners are a welfare committee of the Chappanangadi Bappu Musliyar Smaraka Yatheemkhana and one of its officials who seek to quash Ext.P20 on grounds that it is unlawful or improper. On 13 February 2025, the court, applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. District Registrar (G), Kozhikode and others (2004 KHC 1830), held that the petition prima facie makes out a case for an ad-interim order and stayed the operation of Ext.P20 for three weeks, with a further date fixed. After interim relief, the petitioners informed the court that they had filed O.S. No.50/2025 before the Munsiff, Manjeri, and were not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition further; they sought dismissal as withdrawn, while preserving their rights to pursue Civil Court remedies. The 2nd respondent supported withdrawal, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Appendix of exhibits reveals a long history of registrations, annual lists, notices, statements, and communications between the parties. The decision records a procedural resolution: the dispute moves to the Civil Court, and the writ petition ends without a merits adjudication.
This High Court of Kerala dispute arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OPMV 1223/2011, Vadakkara, concerning the death of Muralidharan following a road accident on 08-08-2010 when his motorcycle was hit by a car (registration PY 03 5614). The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased, challenged the Tribunal’s total compensation of Rs. 8,48,400 as grossly inadequate. The insurer admitted the policy but denied liability and opposed the quantum. The appellants pressed for higher compensation, arguing the deceased was a tailor earning more than the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs. 4,000 per month. Relying on Supreme Court authorities (Ramachandrappa; Chameli Devi) and subsequent Kerala/SC pronouncements (Pranay Sethi; Satinder Kaur), the High Court recalculated the claim by adopting a notional income of Rs.7,500, adding 25% future prospects for a 47-year-old, and applying a 13 multiplier with a 3/4 deduction for personal expenses. This yielded Rs.10,96,875 for dependency, of which Rs.6,08,400 had already been awarded; the excess was adjusted to Rs.4,88,475. Further adjustments per Pranay Sethi reduced funeral expenses to Rs.15,000 and increased loss of consortium; loss of love and affection was consolidated into consortium per Satinder Kaur, resulting in an enhanced total of Rs.4,45,475. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount with 9% interest and costs within two months.
This MACA arises from an award of Rs 1,39,630 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, for injuries sustained in a December 11, 2006 accident on the pillion of a motorcycle. The appellant, Smitha Sasi, challenged the quantum on several heads: income, disability, and heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and medical expenses. The Tribunal held the accident due to rash and negligent riding by the first respondent and held the insurer liable; it awarded the claimant Rs 1,39,630 with compensation for medical treatment and disability, and rejected allegations of excess. The High Court observed that the appellant did not adduce evidence of monthly earnings; relying on Ramachandrappa, the court notionally fixed the income of a 24-year-old Nursing Assistant at Rs 5,500 per month, while noting the doctor’s 10% permanent disability certificate. The Tribunal’s 6% disability was considered reasonable. For loss of earnings, the calculation was adjusted to Rs 18,000 after deducting previous award, with transportation increased to Rs 4,000 (net Rs 2,500 after deduction). Applying the Sarla Verma multiplier approach via Pranay Sethi, the Court used a multiplier of 18 for a 24-year-old, yielding enhanced disability compensation of Rs 61,200 after adjusting for prior awards. The appeal is allowed in part; insurer is directed to pay the enhanced amount with 6.5% interest, within two months, and the appellant must provide bank details.
R.C.Rev.No.74 & 75 of 2018 This judgment pertains to two Rent Control Revision petitions (R.C.Rev Nos. 74 and 75 of 2018) filed by tenants Abbas M. and Basheer challenging eviction orders issued under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-I), Kozhikode, had dismissed the eviction petitions in 2016, while the Rent Control Appellate Authority (II Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) allowed eviction on the ground of bona fide need, directing surrender within 15 days. The revision petitions, admitted on file, sought to impugn the Appellate Authority’s order. The petitioners argued that Section 15 of the Act bars proceedings where an earlier petition between the same parties had been withdrawn and not finally decided on merits, asserting that the need claimed by the landlord was not bona fide and that the premises could not be split due to integration of rooms. The court, however, held that Section 15 does not bar these petitions since prior petitions were not decided on merits, and it upheld the Appellate Authority’s finding of bona fide need. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petitions but granted six months’ time to surrender possession on conditions including affidavit of ending possession, arrears payment, and compliance with licensing requirements, failing which eviction could proceed.
This High Court of Kerala (Single Judge) in MACA No.1318/2019 deals with an appeal by the legal heirs of a road-accident victim seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, under various heads. The petition/appeal challenges the Tribunal’s notional income assessment (Rs.6,000 per month) for a victim who had completed a B.Tech and was involved in teaching/training-related activities, evidenced by Ext.A8 (appointment letter) and Ext.A10, and arguments that he also earned via INSIGHT coaching. The appellants rely on several precedents: Basanti Devi (2021 ICO 2356), Fathimath Zuhara (2016 KHC 691), and MACA No.146/2022 to advocate for a higher notional income and more liberal compensation. The Insurance Company counters that Basanti Devi is distinguishable on facts (victim not a student) and that notional income should be anchored to available evidence, suggesting Rs.12,000 as a reasonable figure. After considering the authorities, the court fixes the notional monthly income at Rs.15,000, notes that consortium should be payable to dependents (Rs.40,000 each) but offsets the love-and-affection head once consortium is granted, and allows other enhancements in line with Pranay Sethi (10%/3-year uplift) for future prospects, loss of estate, and other heads. The appeal succeeds overall; enhanced compensation is recalculated as Rs.23,90,500 with a total augmentation of Rs.14,90,100, and interest provisions are laid out, including NEFT/RTGS payment.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1788 of 2025) decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided by Justice C. Jayachandran. The petitioner Lijo Reji seeks to quash Crime No.929/2022 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta, now pending as CC No.267/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor, under IPC sections 451, 354, 354-B, 506(i), 323 and 427, and proceedings under CrPC. The petitioner argues that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the criminal process should be terminated in the interest of justice. The court anchors its analysis in established quashing jurisprudence beginning with Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) and with approval of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that where settlements are voluntary, fair, and bona fide, continuing proceedings may amount to abuse of process and can frustrate ends of justice. The defacto complainant, via an affidavit (Annexure A3), concedes no objection to quashing, and her statements, recorded via video, corroborate settlement genuineness. On this basis, and because several offences involved are compoundable, the court holds that further litigation would be futile. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexure A2 Final Report and all proceedings in CC267/2023 are quashed.
WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 & connected cases The judgment of the Kerala High Court, delivered by Justice T. R. Ravi on 26 March 2024, addresses a large cluster of writ petitions (WP(C) 10612 of 2024 and connected matters) challenging freezes imposed by various banks on petitioners’ accounts in the wake of cybercrime investigations and police notices. Across a pan-India set of petitions filed by individuals, service co‑operative banks, travel agencies, and financial entities, the court examines the legality and proportionality of freezing bank accounts under police directives and cybercrime proceedings. The court recognizes the risk of proceeds of crime and the necessity of preserving assets, but emphasizes that freezing must be proportionate to the amounts involved and should be strictly limited to the sum specified in police requisitions, with capacity for periodical reassessment. Relying on the principle enunciated in Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC Online 661) and citing earlier writs, the court issues interim directions to restrict broad freezes, directs banks to adhere to the notified limits, and directs police authorities to notify Banks if continued freezing is warranted beyond a defined period. The petitions are disposed of with these directions, preserving petitioners’ rights to approach the court again if information is not adequately provided.
Balakrishnan Koottala, the petitioner, challenges Ext.P7, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting Form 5 application seeking removal of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner owns 0.0567 hectares of land in Polpully village, Palakkad district. He contends the land was converted long back and does not fall within the definitions of paddy land or wet land as per the Act, yet the Data Bank wrongly classifies it as paddy land. He had filed Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 to remove the land from the Data Bank, which Ext.P7 refused, stating that agricultural activity on the land (plantains and other crops) and post-2008 paddy cultivation justify retention in the Data Bank. The court notes that Ext.P7 rests on the Agricultural Officer’s report without independent assessment of the land’s status on the date of the Act’s coming into force or its suitability for paddy cultivation. Citing Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, the court emphasizes the need for independent assessment and compliance with Rule 4(4F). The court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs reconsideration of Ext.P6 Form 5 in light of Rule 4(4F) and KSRSEC report, within two months, at the petitioner’s expense, with the petitioner prompted to obtain the KSRSEC report within two weeks.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed by the first accused Samjith P. G in Crime No.117/2025 of Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha, seeking anticipatory/bail relief in offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution case alleges that the petitioner and another went to a bar and, due to animosity with the complainant, insulted the victim with filthy language, with the first accused holding a sword and the second accused assaulting the victim with an iron pipe. The only non-bailable charge is 118(1) BNS (max three years). The Public Prosecutor reported no criminal antecedents. The petitioner’s counsel urged bail on the ground that the offence is punishable up to three years, the accused is ready to comply with any conditions, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The court, applying principles from Arnesh Kumar, Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, and related authorities, holds that bail is the rule and arrest must be justified rather than routine. After reviewing the facts, the court grants bail with conditions including two weeks’ interrogation, bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties if arrest is later proposed, non-leave India, no further offences, and cooperation with the investigation. The order cites Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal to underscore the limits of its observations to bail alone.
Mat.Appeal No.800 of 2011 This is a Matrimonial Appeal under the Family Courts Act arising from a Family Court (Alappuzha) judgment directing the appellants to return Rs. 4,50,000, the value of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments (with 6% interest) allegedly entrusted by the respondent wife to the appellants for the marriage of the 3rd appellant. The respondent, wife of Sreejith (son of the 1st appellant), claimed that 50 sovereigns were given by her family at the time of marriage in 2000 and entrusted with the in-laws for her sister-in-law’s marriage, with an understanding of return within three months. The Family Court decreed recovery of the ornament’s value. The appellants challenged on three grounds: (i) lack of jurisdiction since the husband was not joined, (ii) the respondent did possess 50 sovereigns at marriage, and (iii) no entrustment of ornaments occurred. The High Court examined evidence, including Ext. A1 (marriage certificate), SNDP register entries, cross-examination inconsistencies, and testimony of PWs/RWs. Citing Leby Isaac v. Leena M. Ninan, the court confirms that petitions arising out of marital circumstances can be maintained in the Family Court, but finds the entrustment unproven and notes discrepancies in testimony. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the Family Court judgment is set aside with costs borne by the parties.
This is MACA No. 227 of 2015, an appeal by the petitioners in OP(MV) No. 393/2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The accident occurred on 19 November 2007, when a lorry driven rashly and negligently struck a motor cycle, causing fatal injuries to a young student. The tribunal awarded compensation which the appellants challenge as grossly inadequate. The key issues include the proper assessment of notional income for a student-deceased, the eligibility for future prospects, the correct deduction for personal expenses, and the appropriate heads of damages (consortium, loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses). The appellants rely on Ramachandrappa to fix notional income at Rs.6000 per month and on Pranay Sethi for 40% future prospects, while contesting tribunal’s deduction rate and certain heads of damages. The respondents urge adherence to the tribunal’s findings on deductibility and heads. The Court enhances the notional income to Rs.6000/month, grants 40% future prospects, modifies the deduction to 1/4 due to five dependents, and recalculates compensation with a multiplier of 18, annulling certain heads (e.g., pain and suffering as per Kahlon). The result is an enhanced total compensation of Rs.14,85,300 with interest provisions and directions for payment, including NEFT/RTGS transfer and timelines. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated by the Court.
This is a Writ Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging a February 24, 2025 order of a learned Single Judge rejecting interim relief against a bank-freeze effected by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The appellants, in the hotel construction business, contend that the freeze on their group accounts, based on a finding that proceeds of crime were used to acquire hotel properties, severely jeopardizes their operations. They seek interim relief to lift the freeze and a writ of mandamus directing ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the other statutory respondents to refrain from proceedings; they also urge that the writ petition should be treated as civil, not criminal, and thus fall under the Civil Writ Petition roster. The respondents seek to sustain the freeze and proceed with adjudication under PMLA. The court discusses the distinction between civil and criminal writ petitions, cites various precedents on roster and jurisdiction, and ultimately disposes of the appeal by remanding to the learned Single Judge to determine whether the petition is civil or criminal and whether it lies on the roster, with a further direction depending on that classification.
This writ petition challenges the electoral validity of the fourth respondent as Vice-President and Chairman of the Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath in light of a Munsiff/Magistrate Court judgment (Exhibit P1) dated 14 January 2022 declaring the election void. The petitioners contend that, under Section 107 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, a declaration that an election is void takes effect immediately on pronouncement, extinguishing the fourth respondent’s authority to hold the office. They seek a writ of quo warranto or mandamus to restrain the fourth respondent from continuing in office and to declare him ineligible. Exhibit P2 (order) and interim arrangements limiting the fourth respondent’s privileges were discussed, while it was noted that an interim stay had been challenged in O.P.(C).No.182/2022 and dismissed. The Kerala State Election Commission argued that Exhibit P2 has been subject to appellate scrutiny and that the petitioner should pursue clarifications or further interdiction through the appellate court. The court examined Sections 107, 113, 114 and 153(12) of the Panchayat Raj Act and concluded the petitioner has an efficacious appellate remedy, dismissing the writ petition without prejudice to rights to approach the appellate court.
W.A.No.1246 of 2023 / WA 1246 of 2023 The writ appeal WA No.1246 of 2023 arises from a challenge to the order in RP 548/2023, which itself followed a decision in W.P.(C) No.11928 of 2022. The appellants—Bab y Joseph, Peter P.J, Mercy, and Praveen Peter—allege possession of a land at Thaipparambil House, Chamba kkara Market, Poonithura, Ernakulam, for several decades and claim rights by adverse possession. They have filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and related reliefs (injunction against eviction, deposit of compensation for improvements, and a direction to disburse compensation through a court). The State authorities and related respondents contend that the petitioners have not established title and hence are not entitled to compensation beyond improvement values. The court discusses Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, noting that when there is a dispute about title, the authority must deposit compensation before the court; however, solatium under Section 30 cannot be awarded until title is established. The judgment emphasizes that on land characterized as government puramboke and where title is not yet proven, the petitioners are entitled only to compensation for improvements, and solatium is not payable at this stage. The Division Bench ultimately clarifies that no interference is warranted and the appeal is dismissed, with the reliefs limited to otherwise determined compensation for improvements and rehabilitation components.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4317 OF 2025 The petitioner, Prathima Das, is an accused in Crime No. 16 of 2025 registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam, under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The bail application was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala (P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.) on 01 April 2025. The prosecution alleges possession of 1.203 kilograms of ganja on 22 February 2025, with custody since that date. The petitioner’s counsel submitted willingness to comply with conditions if bail is granted, including local sureties, and highlighted that the seized quantity is an intermediate quantity and there are no criminal antecedents according to the report. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but also stated there are no antecedents, suggesting the petitioner's case should be weighed with caution. The Court noted that because the quantity is intermediate, Section 37 NDPS is not attracted, and the petitioner has no prior antecedents, making bail appropriate with stringent conditions. Relying on long-standing bail principles, the Court quoted Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify bail as a rule subject to conditions. The order grants bail on terms including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, travel restrictions, and a clause on non-violation of conditions, with the right to cancel bail on breach.
