Sheela Sunny vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code .

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.5/2023 of Chalakudy Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 60(3) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution case is that on 27.02.2023 at 05.30 p.m., the Excise party seized 0.160 gram of LSD stamps (12 nos) from the possession of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner, who was transporting the same in a vehicle. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. The petitioner was in custody from 27.02.2023.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel takes me through Annexures-A2 to A5 complaints filed by the husband of the petitioner to the police authorities, alleging that it is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant her bail. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no criminal antecedents alleged against the petitioner. The Public Persecutor seriously opposed the bail application.

It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. But this Court perused Annexures-A2 to A5 complaints submitted by the husband of the petitioner to the police authorities. The veracity of those complaints is to be investigated by the Investigating authority. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The petitioner is a lady and she is in custody from 27.02.2023 onwards. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

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.

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

iii) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

iv) Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

v) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.