Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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