Sudheesh K.V.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.15/2024 of Neeleswaram Excise Range Office, Kasaragod, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 55(i) and 67(B) of the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077). The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 01.02.2024, at around 11.30 hours, the accused was found selling 2.5 litres of Indian Made

Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from his scooter in front of the shop in Karinthalam Grama Panchayat. Hence, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard Sri. T.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel 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 01.02.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contented that the petitioner is a person with two criminal antecedents of similar nature. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2024 and the recovery has been effected.

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 01.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically completed and the recovery has been effected, notwithstanding the rigour under Section 41 A of the Act, I am of the view that the petitioner’s continued detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released 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 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 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].