Knife Never Found, Depth of Wounds Unknown: Delhi HC Refuses To Upgrade Stabbing Conviction From Grievous Hurt To Attempt To Murder 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Belongs To Kamdhenu, Not Ashiana: Delhi HC Finds 2002 Agreement Was A Licence, Not An Assignment — Grants Injunction Against Steel Rival Land Acquired In 2004 At ₹19,660/sq.m — Company Can Now Claim ₹1,30,000/sq.m After Neighbour's Plot Gets That Rate: Delhi HC Allows Amendment After 16 Years State Used Eminent Domain to Hand Over 53 Acres to a Non-Existent Company: Karnataka High Court Quashes Acquisition, Orders CBI Investigation Trademark | Passing Off Action Requires Only Likelihood Of Confusion, Not Strict Proof Of Counterfeiting: Madras High Court Buyer Failing To Pay Full Amount On Time Cannot Sustain Cheating Case If Seller Transfers Property To Third Party: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Arbitrarily Deviate From Merit-Based Posting SOP For Senior Resident Doctors: Calcutta High Court Ready Reckoner Rates Cannot Form Sole Basis For Determining Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court MACT Cannot Decide Personal Accident Claims of Vehicle Owners: Madras High Court Sets Aside Rs. 15 Lakh Award Specific Performance | Sale Agreement to Cheat Stamp Duty Is Void, But Buyer Still Gets Money Back: Madras High Court Higher Degree Cannot Substitute Essential Work Experience; Preference Operates Only Among Eligible Candidates: Supreme Court Legal Representatives Aggrieved By Arbitral Award Must Challenge It Under Section 34 Arbitration Act, Not Article 227: Supreme Court

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