Kerala High Court
Biju vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:12488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
BIJU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O KOCHUNNI THALAVALAPPIL , NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH ,
SRAYIKKADAVU ROAD , NANNAMUKKU , MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679575
BY ADVS.
AJMAL V. A.
A.C.ARFANA
FATHIMA V.A.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA THROUGH EXCISE INSPECTOR , EXCISE RANGE
OFFICE , PONNANI , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:12488
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1716 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 19/2025 of Ponnani Excise Range. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 67B and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 300 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (No. 1 Mc Dowell's Indian Brandy) in a 1.5 litre plastic bottle.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:12488 even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The admitted prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of only 300 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is available in market. The counsel submitted that there is no material produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is selling the liquor. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the instruction received by him from the investigating officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The admitted prosecution case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in possession of 300 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is available in market. Whether the offence under Sec. 55(i) of the Abkari Act is attracted in such situation, is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:12488 Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.
7. 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.
8. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.
"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:12488 where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189:
(1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], 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.
10. 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:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:12488
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. 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 from BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:12488 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
7. If any of the above conditions BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:12488 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 any of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS