Sumesh. 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 accused 1 and 2 in OR No.3/2024 of the Peravoor Excise Range Office, Kannur, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 55(g) , 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 ( for short,’Act’). The petitioners were arrested on 6.1.2024.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 17.30 hours on 5.1.2024, the accused were found in possession of 50 litres of wash, 25 litres of spent wash, 28 litres of arrack and utensils. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Smt.Reshma.E, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

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 6.1.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 6.1.2024, that the recovery has been effected and the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, 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 they are 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 passports, 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 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].