ORDER : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 3 rd accused in Crime No.1614/2023 of Nadakkavu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 28.12.2023 at about 12.30 am, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the crime were found in a car bearing registration No. AP-31/AZ- 7444 in the parking area opposite to the State Bank of India, YMCA Cross road, Kozhikode. On search of the car, 51.9 Kg of ganja was found kept in the boot space. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on the spot. Thereafter the petitioner who is the 3 rd accused was arrested on 28.06.2024. The final report was filed on 24.07.2024. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner raised a short point. The counsel submitted that as far as the petitioner who is the 3 rd accused is concerned, there is only confession statement of the co-accused. The counsel submitted that the confession statement is not admissible and therefore there is no material to connect the petitioner with the crime; hence the petitioner may be released on bail. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are Call Details Records and Decoded Tower Location to prove that the petitioner and the other accused contacted. The counsel for the petitioner took a definite stand that along with the final report, no such material is produced. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. According to the petitioner, there is only confession statement of the co-accused to connect the petitioner with the case. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are Call Details Records and Decoded Tower Location to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 contacted the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submitted that nothing is produced along with the final report. This Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Special Court(NDPS Act Cases)/Additional District & Sessions Court, Vatakara about the same. The counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submitted that nothing is produced along with the final report. This Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Special Court(NDPS Act Cases)/Additional District & Sessions Court, Vatakara about the same. It will be better to extract the report submitted by the learned Special Judge: “The Call Details Records (CDR) is not produced by the investigating officer along with final report to connect the third accused in this case. It is stated in the final report that the investigating officer filed an application for getting certified copy of CDR and Decoded Tower Location of mobile phone No.9567612576 9995261298 and 9321643383 used by the accused No.1 to 3 for hatching the conspiracy to transport the contraband and it will be submitted on getting the same.” 7. From the above it is clear that even now the Call Details Records and Decoded Tower Location are not produced before the trial court. If that is the case, there is only the confession statement of the co-accused as far as the petitioner is concerned. A perusal of the report would show that the Investigating Officer submitted that he is submitting additional documents to prove the case against the petitioner. That itself shows that the final report as far as the petitioner/3rd accused is incomplete. This Court in Vimal K Mohanan v. State [2023 KHC 9028] observed like this: “8. As discussed earlier, the criteria for deciding the entitlement for default bail is completion of the investigation and not filing of the final report. The word 'final report' is not mentioned in S.167. Therefore, when faced with the Public Prosecutor's application seeking extension, or that of the accused demanding statutory bail, the court's consideration should be whether the final report was filed after completing the investigation. If the final report is found to have been filed after completing the investigation in all respects, minor defects in the report, by itself, will not confer the accused with any right to be enlarged on default bail. If the final report is found to have been filed after completing the investigation in all respects, minor defects in the report, by itself, will not confer the accused with any right to be enlarged on default bail. On the other hand, if the final report is filed without completing the investigation, in order to stultify the mandate of S.167(2) and later returned to the investigating officer for completing the investigation, that would definitely entitle the accused to demand that he be released on default bail, if the final report, after completing the investigation and curing the defects, is not re -submitted in court before the 180th day. In Saharath v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (4) KLT 621 ], this Court has held that if the charge sheet was returned as defective, it implies permission to cure defects. Once the defects are cured and the charge sheet represented, it cannot be said that the proviso to S.167(2) CrPC would get attracted.” 8. Keeping in mind the above dictum, I am of the considered opinion that the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer as far as the petitioner/3rd accused is incomplete. Therefore the petitioner who is the 3 rd accused alone is entitled statutory bail. 9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [ 2019 (16) SCALE 870 ], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 10. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [ 2024 KHC 6431 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied) 11. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426] , also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".” 12. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co- operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.