Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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