ORDER : These are applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2. The petitioners are the accused in O.R No.25/2024-2025 of Customs Preventive Division, Calicut. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The prosecution case is as follows: On 15.02.2025, based on a specific information, the officers of the Customs Preventive Division, Calicut searched Line Quarter Rooms located at Kott Kakkadavu near Tirur and seized 88,01,400 sticks of smuggled foreign origin cigarettes valued at Rs.14,96,23,800/-. The petitioners knowingly indulged in the smuggling activities. 4. The petitioner in B.A No.5892/2025 was arrested on 11.03.2025 and the petitioner in B.A No.5896/2025 was arrested on 18.03.2025. They have been in judicial custody since then. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. 6. The case of the petitioner in B.A No.5892/2025 is that he has no connection with the import of any contraband item. Being a local resident and a passerby out of curiosity happened to be present at the place where the inspection was going on. He was implicated based on his own statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He has later retracted from the disclosure statement when examined before the jurisdictional Magistrate. He is innocent of the allegations. 7. The case of the petitioner in B.A No.5896/2025 is that he had no clue about what was being transported in the carrier. He is running a transport business and has no connection with the import or export. His statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was made by way of threat. He has no connection with the contraband seized from the place of occurrence. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been implicated in the crime based on an inadmissible confession statements obtained by way of threat. It is submitted that the investigation is practically over and the further detention of the petitioners is not required. 9. The learned Standing Counsel opposed the bail plea of the petitioners and submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every chance of them repeating the offences. 10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised by judicial pronouncements. This is the principle underlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. 10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised by judicial pronouncements. This is the principle underlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. {Vide: Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [ (1978) 1 SCC 118 ]}. 12. The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of “procedure established by law” {Vide: Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State [ (1978) 1 SCC 240 ]}. 13. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty {Vide: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [ (2012) 1 SCC 40 ]}. 14. In Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393), the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. 15. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, stage of the investigation and the tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail on conditions. 15. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, stage of the investigation and the tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail on conditions. In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed as follows: (a) The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. (b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier. (c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence. (d) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.