Sanjay Kumar K vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.11/2024 of the Excise Range, Kasaragod, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 58 & 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act,1 of 1077(in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 11.01.2024, at around 7.10 p.m., the accused was found transporting 5.400 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), meant for for sale in Karnataka State, on his scooter bearing registration No.KL-14-H-9157. The accused was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard;  Sri.Anil  K.Muhamed,  the  learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shyni V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is involved in five other cases of similar nature in the years 2021, 2022 & 2023. If the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to commit a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On going through the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, notwithstanding the rigour under Section 41A of the Act, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024, and that the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s continued detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

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 for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].