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
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
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
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
