Petitioner Sarath C filed O.P.(G&W) No.1913 of 2020 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking appointment as guardian of the minor Advik S. Nair and custody of the child. He moved I.A. No. 3341 of 2020 seeking interim custody, which the Family Court granted in Ext.P4 on 24 August 2022, directing the respondents to hand over custody during specific Sundays and vacation periods. Challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the welfare of the child and the petitioner’s parental rights necessitate a reassessment of custody arrangements. The respondents contended that the child—now six years old—requires stability with the mother and maternal grandparents, with limited visitation to the father, and pointed to arrears of maintenance. The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction, invoking well‑established principles from Yashita Sahu and Vasudha Sethi that the child’s welfare is paramount and that visitation rights should ordinarily accompany any disruption of custody, while drawing on Shalini Shyam Shetty, Jai Singh, K.V.S. Ram, and Sobhana Nair to outline the scope and limits of Article 227. Ultimately, the Court found no compelling reason to disturb Ext.P4 and dismissed the petition, noting the possible modification after four months via further interaction with the child.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3813 OF 2025 Vijayan, the petitioner, is an accused in Crime No. 152/2025 registered with Yeroor Police Station, Kollam, facing alleged offences under Sections 126(1), 329(2), 115(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The bail application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) challenging custody. The prosecution case states that on 27 January 2025, the defacto complainant, while consuming alcohol at his residence, was assaulted by the petitioner who trespassed, slapped him, and used the handle of a spade to strike him. The petitioner contends that the allegations are false and expresses willingness to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but informed that no criminal antecedents were on record. The court underscored the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, among others, to emphasize non-custodial remedies where possible. It held custodial interrogation unnecessary here and granted bail with conditions: appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, release on Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties; not leave India; refrain from committing further offences; and cooperation with the investigation. The order notes the applicability of Anzar Azeez’s principle and allows cancellation of bail if conditions are violated, while permitting ongoing investigative actions if required.
W.P.(C). No.10240 of 2020 Mano Alex v. Union of India and Others concerns a writ petition challenging Ext.P1 notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for land acquisition for a National Highways project. The petitioners contend the land is not required for any 3A public purpose and that the proceedings are not warranted, seeking to limit relief to the remaining land left out from the 3A notification and to obtain compensation as “purayidom” (dry land not categorized as paddy) rather than as wetland or paddy land. The Court recalls that 3D publication was contemplated and that subsequent orders from 2020 directed the Project Director to address the remaining land or to refix alignment so the balance land could be used. The petitioner relies on Form 5/7 under the Kerala Wetland Act (2008) to remove the property from the data bank, arguing classification as not paddy land as of 2008. The Respondents submit that acquisition involves multiple stages under Sections 3G, 3I, and related provisions; compensation under Section 3G(1) must reflect market value on the date of 3A notification, with a comprehensive enquiry guided by the CALA’s powers. The Court cites Mary John and Aboobacker to emphasize that CALA must consider multiple factors beyond revenue records and that the petitioner may press contentions in the 3G enquiry, including a fresh notification for additional land and a hearing for compensation.
In Bail Application No. 4309 of 2025 filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Sudhanandhan seeks bail in Crime No. 30/2025 of the Kayamkulam Excise Range Office, Alappuzha, alleging offences under Sections 55(i) and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The accused, aged 78 and described as a defence personnel, was found in possession of 56.250 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) packed with a seal stating it is for the use of defence personnel only. The petitioner asserted that he had purchased the liquor from a military canteen and contended that he had not committed any offence, offering to comply with any conditions the court may impose. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, conceded no criminal antecedents were reported in the IO’s notes but noted the defence personnel may possess only 24 bottles of 750 ml each. The court considered these submissions and emphasized that, while evidentiary issues remain, the petitioner’s age and status as a defence personnel weigh in favor of bail. It invoked established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, and Manish Sisodia, and quoted Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal to justify investigative powers and safeguards. The order ultimately grants bail with stringent conditions, while reserving the jurisdiction to cancel bail for violation of conditions. It underscores that the observations are limited to this bail decision and do not pre-empt final trial outcomes.
Ashraf Ali, the absolute owner in possession of about 0.0800 hectares of land in Ayilur, Palakkad district, challenged Ext.P6, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to remove his land from the Data Bank. The petitioner contends the property (Block No.50, Re.Sy.No.221/5-5) is not paddy land or wet land and was wrongly included in the Data Bank. Ext.P6 rests on the LLMC and Agricultural Officer reports, which concluded the land is waterlogged with nearby paddy lands and is fit for paddy cultivation. The petitioner argues Ext.P6 suffers from non‑application of mind, violates the Act and binding precedents, and that the KSRSEC report was not obtained. The court emphasizes that the status of the land as of the Act’s inception date is decisive; the RDO must independently assess whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, rather than merely rely on LLMC or AO reports. It reiterates that waterlogged land is not automatically wetland or paddy land, citing Mather Nagar Residents Association, Aparna Sasi Menon, and Muraleedharan Nair to underscore independent assessment and correct criteria. The court sets aside Ext.P6 and directs reconsideration of Ext.P5 with a KSRSEC report, to be obtained at the petitioner’s expense, within two months, and directs the petitioner to seek the KSRSEC report within two weeks. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 179 OF 2024 Libin, the ninth accused in Crime No.12/2015, challenges an order (CMP No.247/2023 in SC No.657/2023) of the Assistant Sessions Court, Chavakkad, that dismissed his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The prosecution alleged rioting and related offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427, and 307 r/w 149. After earlier acquittals of several co-accused, Libin sought discharge on the ground that the trial judge should have considered materials beyond the police report, including depositions from the trial of other accused and the acquittal judgments, and that the record did not on its own establish a prima facie case against him. The trial court framed charges relying on material on record and did not weigh the extra materials; it relied on a narrow reading of related authorities. The High Court, invoking the proper discharge test under Sec.239 and the principle that the judge must sift evidence to determine a prima facie case while avoiding a full trial at this stage, set aside the order and remitted the discharge application to be considered afresh in light of established principles from V.C. Shukla, G. Sisupalan, and Arunkumar. It also directs exemption from personal appearance during discharge proceedings and allows the revision petition.
This writ appeal challenges a government rotation of special reservation seats for BHMS admissions under the 2023-24 UG Admission prospectus. The petitioner, Jumni Nasry U.M., a Government Pharmacist at Thakazhy Dispensary, secured NEET top rank and sought admission to Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Kozhikode under the Nurse/Pharmacist quota reserved for Kozhikode. The Ayush Department, by order dated 20.05.2023, interchanged this seat with a seat at Thiruvananthapuram reserved for MBBS/BAMS/BVSc/AH/Agriculture etc., arguing the possibility of rotation and to fill seats that remained unutilized. The prospectus approved on 16.03.2023 listed two reserved seats (Nurse/Pharmacist NH at Kozhikode and OH quota at Thiruvananthapuram) but did not mention rotation. The petitioner challenged the order in W.P.(C) No.33935 of 2023; the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that post-publication amendments to the prospectus after the last date for submissions and after the entrance exam undermine legitimate expectations, and that Clause 1.6 permitting modification could not be invoked to substitute a fag-end decision. The court relied on prior Kerala High Court decisions and distinguished others. The judgment quashes the 20.05.2023 order and directs revision consistent with the prospectus and rotation rules, allowing continued study for the sixth respondent if a seat is available.
This appeal concerns the disqualification of a local-level elected member under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. The appellant, Tissy M.K. (also known as Tissy Binu), was elected President of Rajakumari Grama Panchayat on 17.09.2019 after previously winning in Ward No. 10 in the 2015 general election, as INC candidate within the UDF. The 2nd respondent, Eldo, filed Original Petition No. 31 of 2019 before the Kerala State Election Commission alleging defection on the ground that the appellant voluntarily gave up her INC membership by contesting the President election against a UDF candidate and thereby violated a party whip. The Kerala State Election Commission found in favour of Eldo, holding that the appellant had voluntarily given up membership under Section 3(1)(a) and disqualified her from being a member of Rajakumari Grama Panchayat and from contesting local authority elections for six years under Section 4(3) of the Act, with the whip allegedly served in accordance with Rule 4. The learned Single Judge upheld this decision, and the appellant challenged in WA 429/2022. The Division Bench held that Section 3(1)(a) contains two limbs but the first limb suffices to disqualify when there is conduct showing voluntary withdrawal of party membership, even if whistle/whip service is contested. The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the SEC’s order and the order of disqualification.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2256 OF 2014 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition arising from an Abkari Act offence under Section 8(2). The petitioner, A. Ravi, challenged his conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg, which was partly upheld by the Kasaragod Sessions Court, modifying the substantive sentence to a one-year Rigorous Imprisonment while maintaining the fine. The revision petition contends that the crime was registered by PW5, a preventive officer who held the post of Excise Inspector, not by an Abkari officer, rendering the registration vitiated. It also alleges a substantial delay in investigation and raises issues regarding the preservation of seizure materials, including the absence of specimen seal in the seizure mahazar and property list. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, contends that the prosecution witnesses establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, justifying no interference by the revisional court. In its analysis, the court places reliance on Anil Varghese v. State of Kerala (2024) for the specimen-seal principle and on Gangadharan v. State of Kerala (2024) regarding delays in investigation under the Abkari Act. The court observes laches in the preparation of Ext.P5 and highlights unexplained delay in filing the final report, applying these principles to hold that the prosecution faltered. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the conviction is set aside, the accused is acquitted, and bail bonds are cancelled with orders for refund of any deposited fine upon proper application.
The petitioner, Jayan Padasseri, a long-serving civil engineer in the University of Calicut, challenged the eligibility criteria for the post of University Engineer under Ext.P10 (G.O. dated 6-11-2020) and Ext.P11 (PSC notification dated 16-6-2021). He first joined service as Overseer (Civil) in 1996, later rose through the ranks to Executive Engineer (Civil) by 2019, and acquired a B.Tech in Civil Engineering in 2017. Ext.P10 fixed qualifications for the University Engineer post as a degree in Civil Engineering and 10 years’ experience in relevant posts, and Ext.P11 invited applications in terms of those norms. The petitioner argued that, under Statute 2 of Chapter IV of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, and the KS&SSR framework, his earlier experience should count towards the required experience, including time earned before acquiring the basic qualification, and that the KS&SSR Rule 10(ab) should not bar counting pre-qualification experience. He relied on Supreme Court decisions (Anil Kumar Gupta; A.K. Raghumani Singh) and Ravidas to support his claim. The University and the PSC contended that Rule 10(ab) of KS&SSR applies to recruitment and that experience must be gained after acquiring the basic qualification; Statutes 2 and 8 must be read in light of the KS&SSR applicability to university service. The court ultimately rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding that pre-qualification experience cannot be counted for the University Engineer post and that Rule 10(ab) applies to recruitment. The petition was dismissed.
Ibnu Masood, a minor aged 14 at the time of the accident on 07.07.2000, suffered injuries when a jeep owned by the Director General of Police hit the moped on which he was riding as a pillion. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, initially dismissed the petition, attributing negligence to the claimant. This Court (MACA No. 1825 of 2009) remanded for fresh evidence. On remand, the Tribunal found the jeep driver negligent and awarded Rs. 2,80,850 with 9% interest and costs. The appellant contends the award is inadequate, arguing for compensation on account of permanent disability (16.3%), loss of future earnings, and notional income for a minor, aided by jurisprudence such as Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and related Kerala decisions that advocate using notional income, 40% future prospects, and an appropriate multiplier. The Insurance Company disputes, arguing negligence by the petitioner and that the claimed amount is excessive, citing Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. The High Court ultimately adopts a framework guided by Kajal and Abhimanyu Partap Singh, applying an 18x multiplier to a 2000 accident, with a notional monthly income of Rs. 3,000, adding 40% as future prospects, yielding Rs. 4,200 per month and Rs. 1,47,874 for permanent disability, while keeping other heads intact.
MACA No. 182 of 2015; Cross Objection No. 161 of 2021 This is an appeal by National Insurance Company Limited challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur's award in OP(MV) No.883/2008 dated 30.09.2014, which granted compensation to Anillan K.B., the injured claimant. The Kerala High Court, hearing MACA No.182 of 2015 and Cross Objection No.161 of 2021 on 09.12.2022, examines both the insurer’s challenge to the quantum and the claimant’s cross-objection seeking higher compensation. The insurer contends that the notional monthly income of ₹5,000 lacks proof and that award of compensation under several heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, disability, and loss of earning power) is duplicative and unsustainable. The claimant/ cross objector argues that, at 39 years of age and as a mason, income should be higher (₹6,000 notional per Ramachandrappa) and that the extent of disability should be higher given the right-leg amputation; he also seeks consideration of future prospects and expenses for future treatment and artificial limb. The Court holds that compensating disability along with loss of earning power concurrently is improper and reduces the latter to nil, but relies on several precedents to fix functional disability at 65% and future prospects at 40%, with an additional ₹25,000 for future treatment. The enhanced compensation is ₹14,61,600; interest at 5% on the enhanced amount from the petition date; directions for NEFT/RTGS payment; the appeal and cross objection are allowed to the stated extent.
This is an appeal by the claimant challenging an award under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(M.V.) No.1811 of 2006, arising from a 10.06.2005 accident in which the claimant, a 26-year-old engineering student, sustained injuries. The Tribunal fixed a notional monthly income of Rs.3,000 and awarded modest amounts under various heads, including bystander expenses, medical costs, and pain and suffering. The appellant contends for enhancement based on a higher notional income, citing cases where younger engineering students earned more; he asserts that since he was a student who lost six months due to the accident, his income should reflect potential earnings. The respondent insurer counters that the cited Fathimath Zuhara case is distinguishable because it involved death, not injury. The Kerala High Court ultimately finds Rs.3,000 per month too low and, applying the Ramachandrappa principle for 2005, determines a notional income of Rs.6,000 per month, considering the student status and the six months loss. It also increases bystander expenses to Rs.300 per day for 45 days and raises pain and suffering to Rs.25,000. The enhanced total emerges as Rs.1,05,500 from Rs.71,500, a Rs.34,000 uplift. Interest on the enhanced amount is fixed at 6% from the petition date, with a set-off for any amounts already paid, and a direction for NEFT/RTGS transfer after providing bank details; delay in filing partially affects interest as noted in the order."
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal challenges an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in OP(MV) No.301/2010 arising from a 1 November 2009 motor-vehicle accident in which the deceased succumbed to injuries. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,22,150 as compensation but the appellants sought higher compensation, contesting the fixation of income and the assessment of damages. The appellant’s counsel contended that the deceased earned Rs. 10,560 per month (Ext. A1) and that the Tribunal erred in treating the income as notional (Rs. 6,000). Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the court is guided to adopt a higher monthly income, and, applying 40% future prospects (as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi) and a multiplier of 17, the arrangement yields Rs. 14,99,400 as loss of dependency after a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses (as per the same authorities). The Court also revisits conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium) and, following Pranay Sethi and subsequent decisions (New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati; United India Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur), corrects duplications and omissions. The result is an enhanced sum of Rs. 3,15,400 over the tribunal’s award, with interest at 7.5% p.a., and a deposit obligation on the insurer within sixty days of certified copy receipt.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction (O.S.216/1985, Munsiff, Parappanangadi) by Poolakkal Kathiyumma and legal heirs seeking to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property, to protect an old azhu boundary on the northern side, and to enforce possession. The plaintiff claimed that plaint A schedule property, including plaint B schedule land allotted to the plaintiff’s father in a 1953 partition (and later registered), formed part of the plaintiff’s share; the oral partition of the plaintiff’s father in 1962 is central to their title. The defendants argued that the plaint A schedule property lies in Pulikkal village and is described by different survey numbers (including a portion of 74/1A in Pulikal), with the B schedule land being the share of the mother of the 1st defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court upheld dismissal. In this Second Appeal, the High Court examined whether there is a substantial question of law. It found that the plaint A schedule description is not correct, and the properties claimed by the plaintiff do not correspond to the title or tax records (Ext.A1, Ext.A6, Ext.C3–C4; Ext.A2–A4). The evidence failed to prove possession of the alleged land. Consequently, no substantial question of law was made out, and the appeal was dismissed in limine. The court reaffirmed that interference under Section 100 CPC requires perversity or a demonstrably plausible, non-perverse view, which was not satisfied here.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No.1176/2025) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the proceedings arising from FIR No.101/2024 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, which is pending as CC No.611/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyanur. The petitioners, Ranjith Kumar KV and Rajitha, seek quashing of the entire criminal process under the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The respondents include the State of Kerala, the Payyanur SHO (as the investigating authority), and Vijitha VV (the defacto complainant). The petition is supported by affidavits and the parties have facilitated a settlement; the defacto complainant confirms there are no further grievances and that the disputes have been resolved amicably. The court references the jurisprudence of B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh to emphasize that the ends of justice can justify quashing non‑compoundable offences in appropriate circumstances where there is genuine settlement and little likelihood of conviction, so as to prevent futile trials and abuse of process. The court notes the disposition in the affidavits, the absence of ongoing grievances, and the public policy favoring settlement. Ultimately, the court allows the Crl.M.C., quashes the FIR, the final report, and all proceedings in CC 611/2024, directing closure of the case. The decision underscores balancing legislative policy with restorative settlement and ends‑of‑justice considerations.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) concerning Crime No. 5/2025 of Palakkad Vanitha Police Station, later re-registered as Crime No. 216/2025 after transfer to Melattur Police Station. The petitioner, Muhammed, aged 63, is the paternal grandfather of a minor victim. The prosecution alleges offences under Section 75(1)(i) of the BNS, and sections 8 r/w 7, 9(l), 9(m), 9(n) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The incident reportedly occurred while the interim custody of the child was with the father; a custody dispute between the parents is ongoing. The petitioner’s counsel sought bail, offering to comply with stringent conditions; the Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Court observed the sensitive family context but emphasized the need to balance protection of the child with the basic presumption of liberty. Relying on Supreme Court principles and recent Kerala decisions, the Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that arrest must be justified rather than routine. The order grants bail with conditions: appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks; a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; prohibition on leaving India without permission; no commission of similar offences; assurance of cooperation; and continued investigation. The Court also notes applicability of Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez and similar authorities for conditioning and monitoring bail.”
Two bail petitions, filed by Gopinathan, accused in Crime Nos. 15/2025 and 16/2025 of Mannarkkad Excise Range, Palakkad, under the Kerala Abkari Act, were taken up together. Gopinathan was arrested on 02 February 2025 and has remained in custody. The allegations include possession of 34 litres of arrack in a vehicle (Crime No. 15/2025) and, on the basis of the petitioner’s confession, seizure of 125.8 litres of arrack at his residence (Crime No. 16/2025). The court previously rejected two separate bail applications (BA Nos. 2588/2025 and 2582/2025) and granted liberty to refile after three weeks. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, the court acknowledged that the quantity of contraband is substantial, but emphasized a well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Relying on judicial dicta from 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 held that bail is possible if statutory conditions are satisfied. The order directs release on bail subject to stringent conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, cooperation with investigation, non-evade of inquiry, no leaving the country, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The order notes that violations may lead to cancellation of bail, and the decision is to be read as a bail order only, with observing principles drawn from cited authorities.
Visalakshy @ Shalini filed MACA 195/2015 challenging an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in OP MV No.151/2009 arising from a 16.9.2007 motorcycle accident in which she was a pillion rider. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the rider, owner liability, and insurer responsibility, and awarded Rs. 3,32,800 in total compensation. The appellant contends that the quantum is not just or reasonable because the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.3,000 despite settled authority that a coolie’s notional income in 2007 should be Rs.6,000, citing Ramachandrappa. She also argues that her 8% permanent disability should not have been reduced to 5% without cogent reasons, and that future prospects at 25% and a multiplier of 14 ought to be applied for calculating loss of earning capacity. She submits that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation for loss of amenities of life and that enhanced calculations should reflect higher damages for pain, suffering, and loss of earning capacity. The court’s analysis relies on the Ramachandrappa decision for income, Pranay for future prospects, and Sarla Verma for the multiplier. After recalculating heads including disability, loss of earnings, and amenities, the High Court finds a total of Rs.4,98,200, and allows the appeal in part, directing deposit of the enhanced amount with interest and costs within two months.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4340 OF 2025 This Bail Application (BAIL APPL. NO. 4340 OF 2025) before the Kerala High Court concerns Anseer Darimi, accused in Crime No. 1362/2024 of Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode, charged under Section 352(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and offences under the POCSO Act relating to aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 13-year-old survivor in early November 2024. The petitioner, a madrassa teacher, has been in custody since 18 February 2025. Prior bail applications included a denial of anticipatory bail under Sec. 482 BNSS and surrender ordered by the court in BA No. 1035/2025; the petitioner then moved this fresh bail application. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of offences against a minor. The petitioner’s counsel argued readiness to comply with stringent conditions, noting the time in custody and the need for fair trial. The court reiterates the well‑established principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify relief in deserving cases. After considering the detention period and gravity of the charges, the court allows bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions, no further offences, and a two‑month jurisdictional limit; bail can be cancelled for violations. The decision invokes Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as supportive precedent.
