Kerala High Court
Sunilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3237 OF 2024
CRIME NO.34/2024 OF CHERPLUSSERY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, Palakkad
PETITIONER/S:
SUNILKUMAR
AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF PRABHAKARAN, KUNDILTHODI HOUSE, POTTACHIRA
DESOM, NELLAYA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT., PIN - 679335
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
PP, SMT.C.SEENA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3237 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No.3237 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code .
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 34/2024 of Cherpulassery Excise Range Office. The above case is registered alleging offence punishable under Sec. 55(i) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 09.04.2024 at 6.40 pm, the accused was found in possession of 2.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which was intended for the purpose of sale.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the B.A. No.3237 of 2024 3 learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Sec. 55(i) of the Abkari Act is not made out. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is found in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the purpose of sale. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on condition that the petitioner will not commit similar offence in future.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier B.A. No.3237 of 2024 4 judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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 B.A. No.3237 of 2024 5 officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS