Jayaprakash vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10263 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10263 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 September, 2023

Kerala High Court

Jayaprakash vs State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2023

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 8394 OF 2023
    CRIME NO.3/2023 OF PATTAMBI EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT BAIL APPL. 761/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                   KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            JAYAPRAKASH
            AGED 41 YEARS
            S/O.VASU K.
            KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            CHOORAKODE POST, VALLAPUZHA,
            PALAKKAD, PIN - 679336
            BY ADVS.
            I.DINESH MENON
            L.RAJESH NARAYAN


RESPONDENT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
            BY SRI.DENNY DEVASSY, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     THIS     BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 8394 OF 2023
                                   2



                            ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the

petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.3/2023 of Pattambi

Excise Range, Palakkad.

2. The petitioner had filed an earlier bail application vide

B.A. No.761/2023. This Court dismissed the same as per order

dated 08.02.2023 and the order is as under:

"This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.3/2023, where he alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 55(i), 58 and 13 read with 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act, and the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at about 6:30 p.m. on 07.01.2023, the Excise Circle Officer, Ottappalam and party seized 11 Litre of Puducherry IMFL (marked as 'for sale on Puthucherry BAIL APPL. NO. 8394 OF 2023

only') and 11.5 Litre IMFL in a sack which is kept in a Maruthi S Presso Car bearing registration No.KL 52R 8277, owned by the petitioner by name, Jayaprakash, which was parked in front of the house of the petitioner herein, bearing house number No.12/55 of Vallappuzha Grama Panchayath, where the petitioner along with his wife and son, have been residing. At the time of recovery, the petitioner was not there and, therefore, he could not be arrested. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has no connection with the contraband, which were seized, admittedly from a vehicle owned by him. He submitted further that the petitioner owns four vehicles including the one recovered. The learned counsel offered cooperation in the matter of investigation on the submission that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the bail on the submission that total 22.5 Ltr of IMFL were recovered from the car, admittedly owned by the petitioner from the courtyard of his house. Though he could not be arrested, arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation and successful prosecution. That apart, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he has involvement in BAIL APPL. NO. 8394 OF 2023

Crime No.113/2020 of Excise Range Office, Pattambi and Crime No.74/2021 of Excise Range Office, Cherpulassery alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 13 read with 63 of Kerala Abkari Act.

6. In this case, admittedly the car, from which the contraband was seized is that of the petitioner and the recovery was from the courtyard of his own house. Thus the complicity of the petitioner in this occurrence is well established prima facie. In such a case, grant of Anticipatory Bail will spoil the investigation, since his arrest, custodial interrogation and the details regarding the contraband are necessary to effectuate investigation. In such a case, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted.

Therefore, this bail application fails and is accordingly dismissed."

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail and

submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

4. In this matter, the earlier anticipatory bail application

was dismissed by detailed order and no change in

circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner where the contraband seized involves 22.5 litre of

IMFL. Thus, in this second bail application also, the learned BAIL APPL. NO. 8394 OF 2023

counsel for the petitioner not succeeded in establishing any

change in circumstances to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. Hence, this bail application also stands dismissed.

5. It is anxious to note that even after dismissal of the