IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

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

Similar News