The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025/12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4326 OF 2025 CRIME NO.15/2025 OF KASARAGOD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KASARGOD CMP NO.778 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: GANESHA N AGED 39 YEARS, S/O DEVAPPA, KOLLANGANAM HOUSE, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 124. BY ADV P.K.SUBHASH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. BY ADV G SUDHEER, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4325/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 C O M M O N O R D E R These Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected, and therefore I am disposing these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.29/2025 of Kumbala Excise Range, Kasargod and in Crime No.15/2025 of Kasargod Excise Range.

3. Crime No.15/2025 was registered by Kasargod Excise Range alleging offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act with an allegation that the accused was found in transporting 190.08 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor exclusively meant for sale in B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 4 the State of Karnataka. Crime No.29/2025 was registered by Kumbala Excise Range alleging offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act with an allegation that the accused were found in transporting

172.8 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor exclusively meant for sale in the State of Karnataka. The arrest of the petitioners were recorded in Crime No.29/2025 of Kumbala Excise Range on 27.02.2025 and the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.15/2025 of Kasaragod Excise Range was recorded on 05.03.2025.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from

27.02.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 5

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is very serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioners are in custody from

27.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners can be released on bail. But, I make it clear that if the petitioners are involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, and if such an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders, even though this bail order is passed by this Court. There can be a direction to the petitioner in Crime No.15/2025 to appear before the Kasaragod Excise Range on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed and the petitioners in Crime No.29/2025 appear before the Kumbala Excise Range on every Tuesday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed. B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 6

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 7 have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied)

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 8 as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".” Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions:

1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 9 for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioners shall appear before Investigating Officer interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of jurisdictional Court. B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 10

4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of they are accused, suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.

6. The petitioner in Crime No.15/2025 shall appear before the Kasaragod Excise Range on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed and the petitioners in Crime No.29/2025 shall appear before the Kumbala Excise B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 11 Range on every Tuesday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed.

7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AMR

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025/12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4326 OF 2025 CRIME NO.15/2025 OF KASARAGOD EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KASARGOD CMP NO.778 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: GANESHA N AGED 39 YEARS, S/O DEVAPPA, KOLLANGANAM HOUSE, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 124. BY ADV P.K.SUBHASH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. BY ADV G SUDHEER, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4325/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 C O M M O N O R D E R These Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected, and therefore I am disposing these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.29/2025 of Kumbala Excise Range, Kasargod and in Crime No.15/2025 of Kasargod Excise Range.

3. Crime No.15/2025 was registered by Kasargod Excise Range alleging offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act with an allegation that the accused was found in transporting 190.08 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor exclusively meant for sale in B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 4 the State of Karnataka. Crime No.29/2025 was registered by Kumbala Excise Range alleging offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act with an allegation that the accused were found in transporting

172.8 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor exclusively meant for sale in the State of Karnataka. The arrest of the petitioners were recorded in Crime No.29/2025 of Kumbala Excise Range on 27.02.2025 and the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.15/2025 of Kasaragod Excise Range was recorded on 05.03.2025.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from

27.02.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 5

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is very serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioners are in custody from

27.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners can be released on bail. But, I make it clear that if the petitioners are involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, and if such an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders, even though this bail order is passed by this Court. There can be a direction to the petitioner in Crime No.15/2025 to appear before the Kasaragod Excise Range on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed and the petitioners in Crime No.29/2025 appear before the Kumbala Excise Range on every Tuesday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed. B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 6

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 7 have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied)

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 8 as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".” Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions:

1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 9 for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioners shall appear before Investigating Officer interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of jurisdictional Court. B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 10

4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of they are accused, suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.

6. The petitioner in Crime No.15/2025 shall appear before the Kasaragod Excise Range on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed and the petitioners in Crime No.29/2025 shall appear before the Kumbala Excise B.A Nos.4325 and 4326 of 2025 11 Range on every Tuesday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed.

7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AMR