This matrimonial appeal arises from a divorce decree granted by the Family Court, Pala, dissolving the marriage between Kavitha and K.P. Satheesan. The marriage is claimed to have taken place in 2001, with parties disputing whether it occurred on 13 May 2001 or 13 September 2001, and they have a child. The husband alleged adultery and cruelty, asserting that during his overseas spells the wife developed a relationship with Anilkumar, a close friend of the husband, and that he had observed the wife and the second respondent in a compromising situation; he also claimed frequent nocturnal visits by the second respondent and cruelty. The wife denied adultery and cruelty, contending that marital strain stemmed from the husband’s habitual liquor consumption and his mother-in-law’s coercive conduct, and that she had been employed by the second respondent, a friend of the husband. The family court found the evidence inadequate to prove adultery or cruelty and dissolved the marriage in 2013. On appeal, the High Court notes that the parties have lived separately since 2011 with no cohabitation, and cites Supreme Court authorities recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a basis for dissolution. While acknowledging arguments on both sides, the court upholds dissolution and dismisses the appeal, concluding the marriage is irretrievably broken and should end.
WP(C) No. 28714 of 2022; WP(C) No. 303 of 2023; WP(C) No. 1098 of 2023 The petitioners, a group of MBBS aspirants admitted in 2019, challenge the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019, which cap the number of attempts for the first Professional MBBS examination at four and fix a four-year ceiling for completion. They argue the Covid-19 pandemic and resultant disruptions justify another chance and that the 2019 amendments, enacted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, violate their rights. The petitions rely on the Regulatory framework established by Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended in 2019 and question the constitutionality of the 2019 amendment. The matter traces the legal foundation to Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and invokes precedents to contend that there is no vested right to unlimited attempts. The Delhi High Court’s reasoning upholding the regulation is cited, with the Kerala High Court concluding that the impugned regulation is not arbitrary and serves legitimate public interest. Key authorities referenced include State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Union of India, and Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, as well as Manish Kumar v. Union of India to reject the expectation of infinite chances. The petitions are ultimately dismissed, with the court emphasizing the primacy of public interest and professional standards in medical education regulation.
This Original Petition (OP(C) 374 of 2023) arises from Ext.P7 in EA 130/2018 in EP 2/2018 in OS 60/1997 before the Sub Court, Vadakara, challenging sale proceedings in an execution for recovery of money. The predecessor of respondents had filed OS 60/1997 for recovery against the petitioners; the suit was partly decreed. The petitioners’ challenge through AS 470/1999 was partly allowed by this Court, enabling the decree holder to recover Rs. 8,49,981.94 with interest from the petitioners. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP C) with liberty to file a review, which was also dismissed. Post-judgment, Mayan Haji brought EP 2/2018 for enforcement, and the petitioners moved EA 130/2018 under Section 47 CPC to dismiss the execution petition; Ext.P7 dismissed that application. The petitioners argued that Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 bars the suit since it was brought by a retired partner against a firm (Rajadhani Jewellery, unregistered), making the decree non est and unexecutable. The court rejected this argument, holding that Section 69 applies only to suits brought on behalf of the firm. It also found no tenable basis to reject the 47 CPC objection based on Subrahmanya Bhat v. Santhosh Kumar. The petition is dismissed with directions to proceed with fresh sale proclamation, while leaving open any challenge to the sale proceedings by the petitioners.
This writ petition by two CBSE students from Kochi challenges errors in their CBSE certificates and birth-related entries. The petitioners allege that the father’s name of the first petitioner is recorded as 'Jhon Roshan A.J' in Exhibit P2 instead of 'John Roshan A.J' and seek a mandamus directing the third respondent to correct the father’s name and to issue a revised mark sheet-cum-certificate. They also request correction of the petitioners’ dates of birth on the certificates to 2 September 2004 and 1 September 2004, respectively, in line with Cochin Corporation birth records. They rely on Exhibits P14 and P15 showing corrected birth certificates issued by the Corporation, and on Exhibits P12-P13 indicating communications from the Registrar of Births. They also seek dispensation of English translations of vernacular documents. Respondents contend that corrections in CBSE records must reflect the latest Corporation birth certificates and require amendment of the Corporation birth certificates to remove ambiguities before updating CBSE records. The court, after considering submissions, directs the third respondent to examine Exts. P12-P15 and take necessary steps to correct the certificates in light of Exts. P12-P13 and the dictum in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021 (3) KLT 711) within one month of receipt of documents. Petition is disposed of with directions and costs.
ITA Nos. 2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019 This batch of connected ITA appeals (ITA Nos. 2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019) arises from block assessments under Section 153C read with 153A in the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08. The assessee, Mohammed Sherief Koncheril Vegetables, Karunagapally, challenged notices issued under Section 153C on the ground that there was no valid satisfaction by the assessing officer who conducted the search (u/s 132) or any proper nexus linking the seized materials to the assessee. The background facts include a search at E. Shamsudeen’s business premises on 02.08.2006 and a survey under Section 133A, with documents seized and later challenged as belonging to a different person. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and the ITAT dismissed, while the High Court held that the mandatory satisfaction under Section 153C must be explicit and specific, addressing both the positive and negative dimensions of ownership of seized materials. Citing Pepsi Foods, Nikkei Drugs, Nabha, and other precedents, the court held that mere boilerplate “I am satisfied” cannot substitute for reasoned satisfaction. The judgment disposes of the batch by holding that substantial questions are answered in the assessee’s favor and remits the matter to the Tribunal for fresh, law-compliant consideration. The final disposition is that the appeals are allowed and remitted to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.
MACA Nos.259 of 2013 & 1958 of 2021 Two motor-accident claim appeals were heard together by the Kerala High Court from a Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.115 of 2009 (Ernakulam). Vivek T.C., the claimant, sustained serious injuries on 12.04.2008 when the motorcycle he was riding pillion on collided with a scooter. The Tribunal held negligence on the rider and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,34,500, directing the insurer to pay. The insurer challenged the quantum; the claimant challenged the notional income and certain heads of compensation. A central issue was the claimant’s notional monthly income; the petitioner argued Rs.6,500 (as per Ramachandrappa), while the Tribunal fixed Rs.3,000. The court examined notional income doctrine and treatment expenses, including Medi-Claim reimbursements. The Tribunal had awarded about Rs.80,000 for treatment expenses, despite Medi-Claim receipts; relying on Bijumon and Akber Badsha, it was argued these expenses should be reckoned in fixing quantum. The High Court, however, held that Rs.80,000 must be deducted from the compensation; it enhanced amounts on heads such as pain and suffering (Rs.40,000), loss of amenities (Rs.30,000), and extra nourishment (Rs.3,000), while maintaining other heads. The net revised award became Rs.1,16,500. The appeals were disposed; the insurer was directed to deposit this sum with interest within two months, and on deposit, the amount would be disbursed to the claimant.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 2745 of 2020) heard by a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court, challenging an order directing further investigation in Crime No. 3371/2016 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. The matter arose from a complaint that, while A.O. Anto served as chairman of Navodaya Kuries Ltd., he allegedly misappropriated Rs. 82,332 through forged documents and diverted funds to the company’s kuri account. The Police filed a refer-report after investigation under Cr.P.C. 173(8) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation. The second respondent/de facto complainant challenged this refer-report by filing Crl.M.P No. 2137/2017, which led to a cryptic order ordering forwarding for further investigation. The Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, set aside that order on the ground that the CJM did not give reasons and remanded for fresh orders, directing the CJM to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioners contended the revision petition was not maintainable, questioned the scope of 173(8) inquiry, and attacked the cryptic nature of the CJM order. The High Court affirmed the ASJ’s insistence on a reasoned order and dismissed the petition, while directing the CJM to issue fresh orders with reasons consistent with the ASJ’s directions, upholding the prior order.
The petitioner, Chelavoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., a bank, challenged a debit freeze imposed on its account no. 536105000036, arguing it was illegal and arbitrary since the freeze stemmed from police requisitions against the bank. The Kerala High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, government pleader, and the respondent bank, relied on established precedents to limit the freezing order to the exact amounts mentioned in police requisitions and directed police and banks to coordinate. In particular, it cited Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), endorsing the view that freezing orders should be confined to the stated sums and that banks must promptly inform authorities whether continuance of the freeze is required, within a defined timeframe. The court also invoked the interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and related jurisprudence including State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2018) 2 SCC 372, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024 SCC OnLine SC 895) to stress the necessity of timely reporting and the potential lifting of the debit freeze if no intimation is provided. The judgment culminates in explicit directions aimed at balancing bank access with police seizures and ensuring timely judicial oversight.
The petitioner, Alen Sabu, seeks to quash Ext.P8 and obtain a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Collector to establish a petroleum retail outlet in his property at Muvattupuzha. The 5th respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, later substituted as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, issued a Letter of Intent to the petitioner and applied for an NOC under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. Reports from statutory authorities followed; Avoly Grama Panchayath certified no residential buildings within 50 meters; the Fire and Rescue Department issued a positive NOC; however, the 3rd respondent’s Ext.P6 report stated there are no schools, hospitals, or water sources, but noted a nilam within 50 meters; the 2nd respondent’s inspection deemed the petitioner's land as ‘purayidam’ and the 1st respondent sought clarification from the 4th respondent, who classified the petitioner’s land as converted purayidam in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). Ext.P8 was issued on alleged misinterpretation of CPCB norms. The petitioner contends Ext.P9 guidelines intend no blanket ban where there is no water body within 50 meters, and that classification for tax purposes does not determine water bodies. The court emphasizes plain reading of Ext.P9, and, citing RDO, Fort Cochin & Others v Jalaja Dileep (2015 (2) KHC 109), holds that nilam/purayidam classification is not determinative for waterbody constraints. The writ petition is allowed, Ext.P8 quashed, and the 1st respondent directed to process the 5th respondent’s NOC application within one month, in accordance with law.
NASAR, the appellant in MACA No.1318 of 2015, challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara's quantum of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 05.12.2004. The petitioner, a pillion rider on motorcycle KL-11-E-2410, claimed Rs 1,25,000 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal held negligence on the part of the rider and directed the insurer to pay the amount, noting the policy was an act-only policy and exonerating the insurer. The award totaled Rs 62,587, with heads including loss of earning (Rs 8,000), pain and suffering (Rs 15,000), bystander expenses (Rs 5,400), future medical expenses (Rs 27,187), and mental shock (Rs 5,000); several heads were not capitalized. NASAR contends the notional income was understated and seeks higher compensation based on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) which supports fixing income at Rs 4,500 for a low-earning claimant, and for enhanced awards across head of loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other heads. The insurer contested negligence and argued the evidence does not establish the claimed income or disability. The High Court, while noting no disability certificate, partially allows the appeal, refixing total compensation at Rs 1,38,687 and directing deposit with interest within two months, with disbursement on deposit. The judgment thereby modifies the quantum while upholding liability on the driver.
O.P. (KAT) No.145 of 2025 The petitioner, Dr. Ranjith Ram, is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering at Government Engineering College, Kannur, with over 23 years of service. He challenged a transfer order that would see him moved away from Kannur, arguing it would adversely affect his disabled child. The child has mild intellectual disability (disability 50%, IQ 60) as per Annexure A7. The Government’s order dated 23.10.2024 rejected the representation, stating that personal matters of an employee cannot be considered in transfer decisions. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed the challenge. The petitioner invoked the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, contending that a disabled child’s rights and the environment he enjoys must be safeguarded during transfers. Citing Balan v. Union of India (2024 (1) KHC 64), the court noted that the employer must assess whether the child’s rights would be impaired by the transfer and must balance administrative needs with the employee’s rights. The High Court directed the Government to reconsider after hearing, with due regard to the child’s circumstances, and to decide within two months. Until then, the petitioner may continue in his current post. The impugned Tribunal and Government orders were set aside and the petition disposed of accordingly.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal Misc. Case (Cril.M.C.2733/2020) arising from Crime No.3373/2016 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. Accused Nos.1 and 3 (A.O. Anto and Ajith Anto) challenged a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The prosecution, led by the State and Navodaya Kuries Ltd., alleged misappropriation by the accused while they served as chairman/office-bearer of the second respondent company, involving forged documents and transfer of Rs.82,110 to the second petitioner’s kuri account, triggering a refer-report to the CJM. The CJM’s cryptic order directing further investigation was set aside by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, who remanded for a speaking order. The petition contended the revision petition against the CJM order was not maintainable, and that the order should contain reasons, failing which it would be unsustainable. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that while the ASJ correctly noted the absence of reasons in the CJM order, the CJM must pass fresh orders in compliance with the ASJ’s directions. The judgment reiterates the need for reasoned, speaking orders in criminal investigations while leaving the door open for a fresh, properly reasoned decision by the CJM.
This Bail Application (BA No.4500 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court pertains to the accused, Sreekkuttan, in Crime No.272/2025 of Cherppulassery Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences under Sections 64(1) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The brief case history shows allegations of a prolonged pattern of sexual relationships with the victim (a widow with two children) on the pretext of marriage, spanning from 2023 to 2025, including multiple encounters at hotels and homes and alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments and money. The petitioner sought bail under Section 482 CrPC, and the Court, after hearing the Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, weighed settled bail principles against the gravity of the accusations. Relying on leading constitutional-bail jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing personal liberty and the distinction between arrest power and its exercise. Citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, the Court concluded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation while ensuring the accused’s cooperation. The final order grants bail with specified conditions, balancing the victim’s rights, public interest, and the accused’s liberty.
Sabeer Fakheer, the accused, seeks bail in B.A. No.4472 of 2025 arising from Crime No.100/2025 registered at Railway Police Station, Kottayam, under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, for alleged possession of 3.015 kg of ganja. The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The prosecution contends there is no criminal antecedent, but the accused’s origin from West Bengal and the likelihood of the accused not appearing for trial justify cautious handling; the quantity seized is described as an intermediate quantity. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the quantity is not warranting the stringent Section 37 NDPS parametres and that the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions, including local sureties from Kottayam and a bond of Rs 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, with custody since 21.02.2025. Relying on well-settled bail jurisprudence, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The order grants bail with conditions: appearance before IO, not leaving India, no new offences, and the State and prosecution may seek cancellation if violated. The decision anchors on the principle that fair trial under bail is essential.
This is a bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) by the fourth accused, Ananthu Rajan, in Crime No.427/2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. The offence alleged comprises offences under sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 110 and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS for acts on 04.03.2025 around 11:15 pm when the defacto complainant and his friends were on a road margin; the second accused allegedly uttered abuses, kicked him, and the others constrained and assaulted him, resulting in injuries. The main overt act is attributed to the other accused; the petitioner is the 4th accused and has been in custody since 05.03.2025. The counsel for the petitioner sought bail subject to stringent conditions, while the Public Prosecutor opposed. The court examined the standard principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to emphasize the entitlement to bail in deserving cases. After considering the facts, the court held that, although the case involves serious allegations against multiple accused, the 4th accused can be released on bail with conditioned safeguards and monitoring. The order emphasizes that the observations are strictly for deciding this bail petition and imposes standard bail conditions to ensure cooperation with investigations and prevent misuse of liberty.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4567 OF 2025 This Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/CrPC comes up before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioner Aneesha, aged 50, is the wife of the de facto complainant and stands accused in Crime No. 1091/2023 of Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur, for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that she, with common intention, fabricated a fake power of attorney purportedly executed by her husband (the de facto complainant), appointing Aneesha as his power of attorney holder, mortgaged 86 cents of his property, and thereby obtained a loan of Rs 5,00,000 from Bright Kuries. The de facto complainant/husband contends that the POA is forged and misused by Aneesha and others, whereas Aneesha submits that the acts were with her husband’s knowledge and that she is ready to abide by conditions if bail is granted. The defense emphasizes that custodial interrogation is unnecessary since she has not been arrested; surrender to the investigating officer can be arranged, and after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, bail can be granted with stringent conditions. The court reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, cites Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez, and ultimately allows the bail with conditions, including appearance, bonds, cooperation, travel restrictions, and non-commission of similar offences, while leaving the matter for further investigation under the IO’s supervision.
This writ appeal challenges Ext.P17, a Government order dated 29.08.2022, which affirmed the fifth respondent’s right as the educational agency to appoint and replace the Manager of Nambrathkara U.P. School, an aided institution. The petitioner, Saritha K.R., daughter of the fifth respondent, served as a Needle Work Teacher and was appointed as Manager under Ext.P7 (2007) exempting the holder from Rule 8 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). Ext.P9 (31.01.2020) revoked Ext.P7, and Ext.P10 (06.02.2020) appointed the fifth respondent as Manager. The writ petition challenged these orders; the High Court stayed the orders; the Division Bench of this court in Sudheer v. Susheela (2011) was relied upon; the Single Judge later upheld Ext.P17. The appellate bench held that the educational agency has the authority to appoint and change the Manager, that Ext.P17 is in order, and that Sudheer has no application to these facts. The court noted that the de facto doctrine could save acts performed by the petitioner between Ext.P10 and Ext.P17. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the power and discretion of the educational agency in appointing Managers for aided schools.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4476 OF 2025 Ajith Kumar, the petitioner, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in Crime No. 574/2025 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam, in connection with NDPS offences (Sections 22(b), 20(b)(ii)A and 8(c)) for alleged possession of 1 gram of MDMA and 6.5 grams of ganja. He has been in custody since 10 March 2025. The prosecution indicates the petitioner is also involved in another case as per the IO’s report. The court notes the seized quantity qualifies as an intermediate quantity, thus not attracting the rigour of Section 37 NDPS. The applicant has no NDPS antecedents. Counsel for the petitioner argues that bail should be granted with stringent conditions since bail is the rule and jail the exception, per established jurisprudence, and that the accused is ready to comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the serious nature of NDPS offences and the IO’s report of another case. The court, after balancing factors—intermediate quantity, lack of antecedents, custodial period, and public interest—holds that bail can be granted with conditions. Relying on leading judgments including Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia and Anzar Azeez, the court grants bail with conditions and cautions that future offences may lead to cancellation of bail. The decision reflects the principle that bail is the rule if statutory conditions are met.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4491 OF 2025 Kailas Nadh, aged 21, is the petitioner in Bail Appl. No. 4491 of 2025 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. Crime No. 173/2025 of Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha, alleges offences under Sections 366, 354B, 506 and 376(2)(n) IPC arising from repeated abduction and sexual acts following a false promise of marriage. The prosecution asserts that the accused lured the complainant, abducted her, and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions in 2023 and 2024; the complainant is described as a major, while the petitioner is 21 years old. The bail application was heard on 9 April 2025 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court examined the First Information Statement and relied on recent Supreme Court decisions on the legality and scope of bail in cases involving alleged false promises of marriage, notably Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Another and Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, both to the effect that a direct nexus must appear between the promise and the act. The court also cited established bail principles from Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, and Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez. Finding that the petitioner can be released on bail with stringent conditions, the judge imposed bond and surety requirements, restrictions on travel, and ongoing cooperation with the investigation, with the order expressly limited to deciding this bail petition.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4374 OF 2025 & 4379 OF 2025 These Bail Applications (BA 4374/2025 & 4379/2025) arise from Crime Nos. 163/2025 and 167/2025 of the Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petitioners were accused in two cases involving alleged sexual offences against a minor survivor. In Crime No. 163/2025, the offences include IPC Sections 354A(1)(i), 354D, 366, 376(1) and provisions of the POCSO Act (Section 8 read with 7, Section 12 read with 11(iv), Section 4(1) read with Section 3(a)) and Section 84 of the JJ Act, 2015. In Crime No. 167/2025, the charges relate to a sequence of offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 75(1), 75(1)(ii), 78(1), 87, 64(2)(m)) and POCSO/JJ Act provisions (POCSO Sections 8, 7, 12, 11(iv), 4(1), 3(a), 6, 5(l)) in connection with alleged sexual abuse of a minor. The petitioners argue that, after an earlier bail petition and a detention period around two months, they should be released on bail with stringent conditions, noting several co-accused released on bail and the Court’s discretion to grant bail. The High Court cites the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and applies the Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala doctrine. The order grants bail with conditions, states the observations are for bail purposes only, and reserves a jurisdiction to cancel bail for violations.
