AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 384 wordsDr. Kauser Edappagath, J
This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.80/2021 of Excise Range Office, Kollam. The offences alleged are under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
The prosecution case in short is that on 17/05/2021 at 2.40 p.m, the petitioners were found in possession of 70 litres of wash and 2 litres of arrack in violation of the Abkari Act and Rules and thereby committed the offence.
Heard both sides and perused the case diary.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime and hence they are entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. She contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioners and if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.
The law with regard to the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioners is well founded. The allegations made against them are very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on their part. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioners influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if they are released on bail. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, I feel that it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The application is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the bail application is dismissed.