Unni @ Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4978 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4978 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2022

Kerala High Court

Unni @ Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 4 May, 2022

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 3249 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            UNNI @ UNNIKRISHNAN
            AGED 46 YEARS
            PULLAMPALLLI VELUTHEDATH, NORTH BEPORE.P.O.,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673015

            BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS



RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031

    2       2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            MARAD POLICE STATION,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673018

            BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



            ADV VIPIN NARAYAN - SR P.P




     THIS     BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3249 OF 2022
                                  2



                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                     --------------------------------
                         B.A.No. 3249 of 2022
                     -------------------------------
                  Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022

                              ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

2. The petitioner is the accused in crime no.155/2022 of Marad

Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner

alleging offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

3.The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in

possession of 5.3 liters of indian made foreign liquor which was

siezed from a paddy near Pulichottil Kariyathankavu.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no

connection to the contraband seized from the paddy field. The

Counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted,

the offence under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act is not made out.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contraband siezed is

manufactured in Mahi and therefore the offence is attracted. The BAIL APPL. NO. 3249 OF 2022

Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail,

stringent conditions may be imposed. The allegations against the

petitioner is very serious. But the prosecution case is that the

petitioner is found in possession of Indian made foreign liquor in

excess from the prescribed quantity. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I think that custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not necessary because the search, arrest, seizure etc is

already over. In such circumstances, the petitioner can be granted

anticipatory bail after imposing stringent conditions.

5. 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 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.

6. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar

Pradesh and Another (2021(5)KHC 353) considered the point

in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is BAIL APPL. NO. 3249 OF 2022

extracted hereunder.

. "12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."

7. 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. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer within two weeks from today BAIL APPL. NO. 3249 OF 2022

and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating

Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he/they

shall be released on bail on executing a bond for

a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand

only) with two solvent sureties each for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer