Muhammed Musthafa vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners who are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.19/2024 of the Mannarkkad Excise Range Office, Palakkad, registered against them, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 55(i), 55D, 10 and 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act,1 of 1077. The petitioners were arrested on 22.02.2024.

The prosecution allegation is that, on 21.02.2024 at about 20.55 hrs, the Excise Circle Inspector, Mannarkkad and party were conducting patrolling duty, they found accused 1 to 3 illegally transporting 95 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in an autorikshaw bearing No.KL-50B-7835. The accused were arrested then and there with the contraband articles. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitionerS submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioners continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024, the recovery has been effected and the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2024, that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, that the recovery has been effected and investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the view that petitioners continued detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

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) 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 for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they 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 filed and entertained before 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 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].