MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception:  Kerala High Court Grants Bail in ₹15.96 Lakhs Jewellery Heist Case

03 October 2024 2:48 PM

By: sayum


Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C.S. Dias, granted bail to two accused in Muhammed Ismail & Anr. vs. State of Kerala (BA No. 6434 of 2024). The petitioners, accused of involvement in a 2021 jewellery heist in Kasargod, were released on bail after spending 90 days in judicial custody. The court cited the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," following precedents set by the Supreme Court.

The case involved a robbery at Rajadhani Gold and Silver on July 26, 2021, where silver ornaments and watches worth ₹15.96 lakhs were stolen. The petitioners, Muhammed Ismail and Muhammed Gose, were accused of breaking into the shop and committing the robbery. They were arrested on July 3, 2024, and had remained in custody for 90 days. Despite being named late in the investigation, the police completed their investigation, filing the charge sheet on September 13, 2024.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Their counsel argued that the petitioners were innocent, not initially named as suspects, and only learned of the charges upon arrest. They had been in custody for 90 days, and the investigation was complete, with no reason to continue denying them bail.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioners' alleged involvement in two other similar crimes and the risk of witness intimidation or evidence tampering. However, the court noted that the principle of granting bail had been emphasized by the Supreme Court in recent rulings. Referring to the Manish Sisodia and Jalaluddin Khan cases, the court reiterated that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment and should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Considering the completion of the investigation, the petitioners' 90 days in custody, and the absence of strong reasons to deny bail, the court allowed the application with conditions. Each petitioner was ordered to furnish a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties, along with conditions to regularly report to the investigating officer and refrain from tampering with evidence or committing further offenses.

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024

Muhammed Ismail & Anr. vs. State of Kerala

Latest Legal News