Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who had been accused of possessing materials intended for making country bombs. Despite the prosecution’s objection based on his involvement in 12 previous criminal cases (including two under the Explosive Substances Act), the Court held that continued incarceration was unnecessary. The petitioner was granted bail with strict conditions, taking into account the period already spent in custody since 27 May 2025.
Facts
The petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 707 of 2024, registered by the Dharmadam Police Station in Kannur, for offences under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011; and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to the prosecution, on 15 December 2024, the petitioner was found in possession of four steel vessels and a six-inch PVC pipe—allegedly intended for manufacturing country bombs—hidden in a shed behind his house. A chemical analysis confirmed that the items contained potassium nitrate and carbon. He was arrested on 27 May 2025 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.
Issues
- Whether the continued detention of the accused was necessary despite previous criminal antecedents.
- Whether the gravity of the offence justified denial of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, through counsel, submitted that the allegations were false, and he had already been in custody for a considerable period. It was contended that the nature of materials allegedly recovered did not warrant further detention, especially when he was not caught in the act of making or using explosives. Emphasis was also placed on his right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was involved in 12 prior criminal cases, including two offences under the same Explosive Substances Act. It was argued that his release posed a threat to public safety, and he may repeat similar offences or tamper with the investigation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which pertains to the grant of bail. It also assessed the application of Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which carry serious implications for public safety. However, the Court also weighed the settled principles relating to bail, especially the presumption of innocence, proportionality of detention, and the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment does not specifically cite past cases, it follows the jurisprudential thread from several Supreme Court and High Court decisions that prioritise liberty and seek to avoid pre-trial incarceration unless absolutely necessary. Courts have previously held that mere criminal antecedents cannot justify perpetual detention, particularly where the prosecution has not demonstrated a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s previous criminal history but balanced it against the duration of his current incarceration and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed:
“Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner is involved in 12 other criminal cases, considering the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that further detention is not required in the circumstances of the case.”
This balancing of individual liberty with public interest formed the crux of the Court’s reasoning.
Conclusion
The bail application was allowed with the following conditions:
- Execution of a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties.
- Mandatory appearance before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
- No intimidation or influencing of witnesses, and no tampering with evidence.
- No commission of similar offences while on bail.
- No travel outside India without permission of the jurisdictional court.
The jurisdictional court was also empowered to alter or delete conditions if necessary.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms that bail is the rule and jail the exception, even in cases involving serious charges under the Explosive Substances Act. Courts are expected to adopt a balanced approach, considering not only the gravity of the offence but also the actual circumstances, including the length of pre-trial detention. It serves as a reminder that even repeat offenders are entitled to the protection of constitutional liberties.
Cases Referred
While no specific case law was explicitly cited in the judgment, the ruling aligns with the broader precedent set by courts in bail jurisprudence which emphasises liberty, proportionality of detention, and a case-specific approach.
FAQs
Q1. Does previous involvement in criminal cases automatically disqualify a person from getting bail?
No, the Court clarified that past criminal records alone cannot justify prolonged detention if the current circumstances do not warrant it.
Q2. What are typical conditions imposed by the court while granting bail?
Conditions often include appearance before the police, non-tampering with evidence, not leaving the country, and providing solvent sureties.
Q3. Can bail conditions be modified after they are imposed by the High Court?
Yes, the jurisdictional court can entertain applications for modification or deletion of bail conditions, even if bail is granted by the High Court.
