This appeal arises from M.A.C.A. No. 1673/2019 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in O.P.(MV) No. 822/2009 for the death of Nadirshaw in a motor vehicle accident on 11 June 2009. The Tribunal held the driver (2nd respondent) negligent and awarded Rs. 8,60,000 to the petitioners (legal heirs). The appellants argued that the Tribunal undervalued the deceased’s income and failed to properly account for future prospects; they contended that the deceased had worked as a salesman in Oman with income around 225 Omani rial per month, supported by Exhibit A6, though the insurer pointed out that A6 is a photocopy and no passport/visa was produced. The High Court undertook a re-appraisal, noting PW1’s lack of direct knowledge about income and replacing the notional figure with Rs.7,000 per month, applying Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, Pranay Sethi, Jagdish) on income, future prospects, and dependency deductions. It held the mother of the deceased to be non-dependent, and applied a 17-year multiplier, with a 40% addition for self-employed income and a 1/4 deduction for personal/ living expenses (Sarla Varma). The calculation yielded increased compensation of Rs.16,11,100, and the appeal was allowed. It directed payment with 7.5% interest from petition date to realization, costs, and a three-month deposit. A later correction notes that interest on the enhanced amount for delay is not payable.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4485 OF 2025 Muhammed Rameez, the petitioner, is the fourth accused in Crime No.319/2025 of Nemom Police Station. The case registers offences under sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 137(2), 296(b), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleges that on 09.03.2025, the second accused uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated him; thereafter, the first and others allegedly obstructed and assaulted the complainant and his friend, including by hitting with a helmet and slapping, with risks of serious injury or death. The petitioner, aged 19, contends that he is in custody since 10.03.2025 and that his involvement is not grave; he is ready to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and potential for further harm. The High Court, acknowledging the gravity of the allegations but noting that indefinite detention is not necessary, considered the circumstances and relied on established bail principles that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” Citing decisions of the Supreme Court and Kerala authorities (Chidambaram P., Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez), the Court granted bail with stringent conditions: a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperation with investigation; restrictions on travel; and a safeguard against reoffending. The order emphasizes that its observations pertain to the bail petition and that bail norms prevail, not as a punishment, but to ensure a fair trial.
CRL.M.C. No. 1103 of 2023 This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 1071/2022 of Konni Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2; the respondents are the State and the defacto complainant. Annexure A1 alleges rape under sections 376 and 120B IPC. Annexure A2 was an earlier FIR (2019) under IPC 498A and related provisions, leading to Annexure A3 Final Report, while Annexure A1 relates to a later claim of rape in 2015. The gravamen of the petition is that Annexure A1 FIR is a second FIR for the same occurrence and that the seven-year delay, together with an injunction obtained by the defacto complainant in a civil suit, makes continued proceedings a misuse of process. The court, after hearing all parties and considering case diary, repeatedly cites various Supreme Court precedents (notably TT Antony, Surender Kaushik, Krishna Lal Chawla) and Kerala decisions (Gargian Sudheeran) to analyze the propriety of quashing a second FIR in the same transaction. It concludes that registering a second FIR for the same conduct, after a long delay and clear inconsistencies between prior statements and new allegations, constitutes abuse of process and warrants exercise of the court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash. The petition is allowed; all further proceedings in Crime No.1071/2022 against petitioners stand quashed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4587 OF 2025 This Bail Application arises from Crime No. 234/2025 registered at Valanchery Police Station against four petitioners for offences under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 121(1), 132 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case relates to an incident on 24 February 2025 at Puramannur Majilis Arts and Science College during a Calicut University Interzonal Kalotsavam, when about 50 students allegedly obstructed police officers attempting to disperse a crowd and an MSP constable sustained injuries from a stone pelting attack. The petitioners, all students, contend the allegations are not correct; they point out that the event was a mela and that how the police were injured is unclear. They express willingness to comply with any conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but notes there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the petitioners are students with no antecedents and that bail is the rule, not the exception, subject to stringent conditions to ensure fair trial. Relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia, and other authorities, the court granted bail with conditions including appearance for interrogation within two weeks, bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, restrictions on travel, and compliance with ongoing investigation, with the caveat that bail may be cancelled for violation of conditions; Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez principles were noted.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4370 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application by Dilshad M, an accused in Crime No.44/2023 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kannur, now pending as Special Court (NDPS Act) Case SC No.1/2024 at Vatakara. The petitioner, in custody since 12.07.2023, faces allegations under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of 68.09 grams of methamphetamine recovered from his room. The prosecution contends the recovered quantity is commercial and opposes bail, while the defense contends that prolonged detention and trial delays warrant relief, citing Supreme Court decisions including Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 Live Law SC 416), Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022), Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023) and Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC Online 618). The court surveys these rulings to evaluate whether Article 21 can override Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act in cases of prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays, and whether bail should be allowed despite a commercial quantity. Ultimately, the court disposes of the bail application with directions for the petitioner to file a fresh bail application within two weeks, and for the Jurisdictional Court to decide after considering the cited authorities within a short time frame.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4473 OF 2025 This bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) concerns Sreekanth S, an accused in Crime No. 504/2025, Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences under sections 189(2), 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 132 and 190 of the BNS. The prosecution claims the incident occurred on 14-03-2025 during the Sree Dharma Kshetram festival, when the defacto complainant (Assistant Police Sub Inspector) was obstructed while directing the accused to move with the kettukazhcha floats, resulting in an assault on a public servant. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, noting that the only non-bailable offence is under Section 132 and that there are no criminal antecedents per the IO’s report; he expresses willingness to comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing the gravity of the offence and that it involved obstruction of a public servant, though with no prior antecedents. The court recognizes the seriousness but emphasizes the spur-of-the-moment nature of the act during temple festival, and cites that co-accused was released on bail (BA 3952/2025). It relies on established bail principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, personal liberty, and guidance from higher courts (Chidambaram, Siddharth v. UP, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez) to grant bail with stringent conditions: two weeks for IO interrogation; potential arrest on bail with Rs.50,000 bond and two solvent sureties; regular IO appearances; prohibition on leave of India; no new offences; weekly Monday appearances; and potential for bail cancellation if conditions are violated. The order thus allows bail under specified conditions, pending further investigation and final report.
This Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita concerns accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Crime No.185/2025 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The petition seeks bail for two youths, aged 18 and 20, who have been in custody since 19.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 respectively, in connection with an incident on 18.02.2025 at 05:50 hours arising from enmity with the defacto complainant. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners and others formed an unlawful assembly, entered the kitchen where the complainant was at work, uttered obscene words and assaulted him, resulting in injuries. The offences span multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS), including sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 296(b), 351(3) and 190, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations. The petitioners’ counsel argued they are youngsters with no criminal antecedents, in custody only briefly, and ready to comply with stringent conditions to secure a fair trial. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but acknowledged lack of antecedents. The court reiterates the long‑standing principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez, to justify grant of bail with conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to weekly IO appearances, travel restrictions, and other customary conditions, with a view to fairness in the investigation and trial.
Suresh, aged 21, is the petitioner in Bail Application No. 4300 of 2025 arising from Crime No. 138 of 2025 registered at Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha and under Sections 6(1) r/w 5(j)(ii) and 5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in August 2024 at the victim’s residence, with repeated sexual intercourse, resulting in the victim’s pregnancy. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.02.2025. The bail application was preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s minority. The petitioner contends that he is willing to marry the victim after she attains majority and is prepared to comply with stringent conditions; a marriage is reportedly scheduled. The High Court acknowledged the grave nature of the charges but reiterated the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other decisions. Relying on precedents, the court held that bail can be granted with conditions where warranted by the facts. The court ultimately allowed the bail petition with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, prohibition on leaving India, refraining from offences, and applicability of the Anzar Azeez principle; provisions for cancellation of bail on violation were also noted.
This bail application concerns accused Nos. 1–3 in Crime No. 337/2025 of Sasthancotta Police Station, Kollam, under sections including 182(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 333, 296(b), 35, 1(2) & 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioners contend that they are accused Nos. 3–5 and that their names are not mentioned in the First Information Statement; no specific overt act is attributed to them, while the principal acts are attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are already in custody. The State/Public Prosecutor opposes bail. The court notes that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and that the principal allegations relate to the first two accused. Relying on Davis P. R. v. State of Kerala, the court directs the petitioners to deposit Rs. 3,000 each before the jurisdictional court as a condition for bail, subject to the final investigation and trial. Emphasizing bail as the rule and jail as the exception, the court cites Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal to justify judicial supervision over the investigation. The order imposes standard bail conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks; if arrest is contemplated, bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; cooperation with the investigation; no leaving India; no similar offences; deposit of Rs. 3,000 each; bail subject to final outcome. The court reserves the right to cancel bail for violations.
The writ petition challenges the debit freeze on bank account No. 15110100198613 imposed by the 2nd respondent Federal Bank Ltd upon a police requisition. Abdul Kareem A.T, the account holder, contends the action is arbitrary and prejudicial, since the account is not shown to be directly involved in any criminal activity and the freeze was imposed without proportionate consideration of his livelihood. The bank acknowledges a debit freeze and a lien of Rs. 1,00,000, but the petitioner argues for immediate lifting and for confining the freeze to the amount specified in the police order, so that funds beyond that limit remain accessible. The matter is decided with reference to Dr. Sajeer v RBI and Nazeer K.T v Federal Bank Ltd, which direct banks to limit freezes to the stated amount and require police authorities to specify the duration and necessity of continued freezing; and with reference to CrPC Section 102 (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and previous Supreme Court interpretations by Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad, and Shento Varghese. The court holds that delays in reporting seizures should not immobilize account holders for indefinite periods, and directs the 2nd respondent bank to confine the order accordingly, with banks and the police exchanging information within prescribed timeframes. If no information is received, the petitioner may approach the court again. The judgment also directs service of the order on the concerned officer.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by the petitioners, Bobina Bobby and Pratheep Kumar, in Crime No. 287/2025 of Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioners are accused of collecting a large sum from a victim on the pretext of arranging a Canada visa, which allegedly was not provided or refunded. They contend that they have already handed a portion of the money to the defacto complainant and that they are taking steps to settle the matter with the victim; they also initiated arrangements regarding M/s. Great Time Enterprises as per Annexure-3. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded that, per the IO report, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The court placed emphasis on the well-settled bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other decisions, including Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, to stress the right to personal liberty and the possibility of a fair trial. On these facts, the court allowed bail with stringent conditions: appearance for interrogation within two weeks, post-interrogation bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, restrictions on leaving India, and a requirement of non-commission of similar offences, with the option to cancel bail on violation. The judgment also references Sushila Aggarwal, Manish Sisodia, and other authorities and states that recoveries may be effected during bail. The order is delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No.2711/2020) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, challenging an order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in a case arising from Crime No.3375/2016 registered by Thrissur Town East Police Station. The petitioner, A.O. Anto, former chairman of Navodaya Kuries Ltd., is accused along with others of misappropriating Rs. 3,28,456 by forging documents and transferring the amount to his kuri account, under IPC sections 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed a refer-report suggesting a civil dispute. The second respondent/de facto complainant objected, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation under 173(8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged this order in Crl.R.P. No.35/2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, raising multiple objections including maintainability of the revision, the scope of 173(8) Cr.P.C, and the cryptic nature of the CJM’s order without reasons. The ASJ held that the CJM’s order lacked reasons, set it aside, and remanded for fresh orders with reasons. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the CJM must provide reasons and comply with ASJ’s directions, effectively requiring a speaking, reasoned order before directing further investigation, in line with Supreme Court guidance.”
This appeal arises from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in O.P.(MV) No.947/2006. The appellant, K. Raveendranath, aged 48 at the time of the accident, was employed as a shift in charge at Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. He contends that he sustained serious injuries while traveling in a bus (KL-8/K-5520) and a lorry (KL-3-P-7673), and challenges the Tribunal’s assessment of negligence, quantum, and disability. The Tribunal, which relied on Exts.A1–A14 due to lack of other evidence, awarded Rs. 97,300 with 8% interest. The appellant disputes the fixation of post‑retirement disability and the corresponding loss of income, seeking re‑numeration under the ratio laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236. Applying that ratio to the accident year 2005, the court fixes a monthly income of Rs. 5,000 for calculating loss of post‑retirement disability and uses the established multiplier. This yields a higher compensation in total. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the enhanced compensation is Rs. 67,200, making a total of Rs. 1,64,500. The third and sixth respondents are directed to deposit this amount within two months, with interest at the existing rate until realization, excluding 137 days as per earlier order.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4364 OF 2025 This High Court of Kerala bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerns the release on bail of Mohammed Ayshkhan, the fourth accused in Crime No. 308/2025 of Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram. The petitioner faces charges under sections 189(2), 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from allegations that an unlawful assembly assaulted the victim, resulting in injuries. The petitioner contends that he is only present at the scene, has no criminal antecedents, is a student, and would abide by strict conditions if released. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but acknowledged the absence of antecedents in the report. The court reiterates the presumption in favor of liberty, stating that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and later Supreme Court decisions (Siddharth v. State of UP; Manish Sisodia; Sushila Aggarwal; Anzar Azeez) to justify liberal bail norms. Considering the petitioner’s youth, lack of overt acts beyond presence at the place of occurrence, and no antecedents, the court grants bail with stringent conditions. Conditions include appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, no international travel, no commutation of similar offences, and cooperation with the investigation. The order emphasizes that violation permits cancellation of bail and aligns with contemporary bail jurisprudence.
Deepika, a minor at the time of the 2003 accident, challenged a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 62,400 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim arose from an incident on 06.12.2003 when a bus allegedly struck her while she stood near Kongad Government UP School, causing crush injuries to the left hand and forearm, including dislocation of the first metacarpal joint. The Tribunal found for the claimant only partially, with negligence contested by the third party insurer, who argued that the minor herself contributed to the accident. Ex parte service left Respondents 1 and 2 absent. The insurer disputed the quantum and disability percentage, while the applicant argued for a higher disability based on Ext.A9 (14% disability certificate) and Mallikarjun ratio. The Medical records (Exts A4, A7, A9, A10) were examined. The Tribunal fixed disability at 8% but, on reappreciation, the Judge increased to 10% and granted enhanced compensation totaling Rs. 1,41,263, including Rs. 1,00,000 for pain and suffering and future prospects; Rs. 20,000 for future medical treatment; Rs. 15,000 for discomfort and loss of earnings of parents; and Rs. 6,450 for bystander’s expenses, with the balance deposit to be paid by the insurer within two months. The decision reflects Mallikarjun’s ratio for compensation and modifies the earlier award. The appeal is allowed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4560 OF 2025 Muhammed Nayaz, the petitioner, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Crime No.192/2025 at Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod. The accusation includes house trespass, mischief and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 333, 324(1), 296(b) and 351(2) read with 3(5)). The prosecution alleges that on 9 March 2025, at about 12:40 hours, the accused restrained the de facto complainant on his two-wheeler and assaulted him with an iron rod, stones and other implements, and the assault could have caused fatal injuries; damages of Rs.10,000 were caused. The petitioner has been in custody since 11 March 2025. He submits that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted and that he is ready to abide by conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing criminal antecedents. The Court notes that the offence includes house trespass and mischief, a non-bailable offence in combination with other charges, and that the damage is modest. In Davis P.R. v. State of Kerala (2025 (2) KHC 6), the Court observed that in such a case the accused may be directed to deposit damages or part thereof as a condition for bail. Relying on this and other rulings, the Court directs a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, a Rs 5,000 deposit, appearance before the Investigating Officer, travel restrictions, and other customary conditions. The bail is granted in the interests of fair trial, with observations that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
Mat.Appeal No.214 of 2022 This matrimonial appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenges a common order dated 15.01.2022 of the Family Court, Malappuram in I.A Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 in O.P. No.736 of 2017. The original petition, filed by the respondent wife, sought a decree for recovery of money and gold ornaments said to have been given at marriage. The Family Court decreed the petition ex parte on 30.12.2019. The appellants (1st to 8th respondents in the original petition) sought to condone a delay of 649 days and to set aside the ex parte decree; their I.A. Nos.1 and 2 were dismissed. The appellants contended that the 1st appellant husband suffers from mental health issues and required treatment, which impaired his attendance, and that the dispute between spouses warranted a decision on merits in the interest of justice. The respondents argued against condonation, and the Family Court held there was no evidence of illness and noted that the husband had appeared in other proceedings. The High Court, relying on Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee, reiterates that ‘sufficient cause’ is elastic and that substantial justice requires a liberal, reasoned approach to condonation of delay, while avoiding prejudice. Excluding COVID-19 lockdown days, the delay is short, and the Court condones it, awarding Rs.2,500 as costs. The appeal is allowed, and the Family Court is directed to restore the original petition on file and dispose of it within three months.
This Kerala High Court Land Acquisition Appeal concerns 0.19 acres of land in Survey No. 2845/C at Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, acquired for widening the LMS Attakulangara road (reach 3). The reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, held the land not to be Puramboke and awarded compensation, while denying enhancement. The claimants challenged the quantum, seeking higher compensation, and lodged a reference under Section 18 and a deposit action under Section 31(2). The State filed Cross Objections against the reference court’s judgments in LAR Nos. 689 and 691 of 2008. The court notes a prior deposit of Rs. 1,70,440 before the trial court as directed by a 2005 judgment and that the State subsequently deposited the amount before the reference court, allowing withdrawal by claimants. On merits, the court relies on this Court’s earlier decision in L.A.A. No.608 of 2009 (dated 14.08.2013), reducing land value and finds no entitlement to enhancement for the claimants. It also scrutinizes delay in filing the Cross Objection (condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act), holding the State’s delay unsatisfactorily explained and noting accrued rights against leniency. Consequently, the court dismisses the L.A.A. No.880/2014 appeal and the Cross Objection, and dismisses CM Appl. No.1/2019 in L.A.A. No.135/2019. The State’s deposits and withdrawal are deemed to have created acquiescence and estoppel affecting the proceedings.
This is a bail petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, before the Kerala High Court involving Santosh Kumar and Rajesh in Crime No.1956/2023 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam. The petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from allegations that they purchased 4500 kg of cashew nuts from the de facto complainant for Rs. 24,60,465, but paid only Rs. 14,00,000, leaving a balance. The prosecution contends a transaction occurred with short payment, and the balance remains unpaid, a matter for investigation to determine whether a criminal offence is made out. The petitioners contend that even if the allegations are accepted as true, no offence is made out; they are willing to comply with stringent conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. After hearing, the court acknowledged the transaction and left the ultimate finding for the Investigating Officer, but held that bail can be granted on stringent conditions. The court invoked established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and discussed personal liberty with reference to Supreme Court jurisprudence and recent Kerala and national decisions, including Anzar Azeez, Sushila Aggarwal, Manish Sisodia, and Siddharth/State of UP line of authorities. The order imposes conditions including appearance before IO, bond, two sureties, travel restrictions, and non-repetition of offence, with a power to cancel bail for violations.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4428 OF 2025 Yedhu Rejipth, the petitioner, is the accused in Crime No.1377/2023 of Eloor Police Station, facing offences under the NDPS Act (Sections 22(c), 22(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29). The High Court of Kerala admitted a bail application on 3 April 2025. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17 September 2023. The counsel for the petitioner contends that where incarceration extends beyond one year and four months, the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act can be diluted in light of constitutional guarantees, particularly Article 21, and cites Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal, and Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing the contraband quantities constitute a commercial haul and the offence is grave, requiring continued imprisonment. The court discusses the cited precedents, noting the primacy of Article 21 when delay in trial causes prolonged detention, and the possibility of bail in such circumstances, while acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged offence and the prosecution’s lethargy in some respects. Ultimately, the court does not grant bail but disposes the application with directions to file a fresh bail plea within two weeks, to be considered by the trial court in light of the cited authorities within a short timeframe.
