Bijeesh vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.40/2024 of the Excise Range Office, Koyilandy, Kozhikode, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 8(1), 8(2) & 67(B) of the Kerala Abkari Act,1 of 1077 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioners were arrested on 03.04.2024.

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: on 03.04.2024 at around 13 hours, the accused were found in possession of 03 litres of arrack, which was meant for sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The accused were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard;  Sri.  P.S.  Binu,  the  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 03.04.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing an offence of a similar nature. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 03.04.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, and, further, that the petitioners do not have criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is filed. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii)The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and Anr.[2020 (1) KHC 663].