Ajayan vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole accused in Crime No.26 of 2024 of Thripunithura Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 55(i) & 13 r/w 63 of Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077. The petitioner was arrested on 01.05.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 01.05.2024, at around 10.45 am, the accused was found in conscious possession of 61.500 Litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the purpose of sale. The petitioner was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Saji Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.05.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that, the investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner has criminal antecedents since he is involved in a case of similar nature. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in conscious possession of 61.500 Litre of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which was meant for sale. He was arrested on the spot with contraband article.

The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.05.2024, the investigation case is practically complete and recovery has been effected.

On an anxious consideration of facts, rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected, notwithstanding the antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) 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].