Nandu P vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 13049 Ker

Kerala High Court

Nandu P vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 3460 OF 2024
   CRIME NO.42/2024 OF PAYYANNUR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.04.2024 IN CMP NO.2721 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PAYYANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          NANDU P,
          AGED 28 YEARS
          S/O NARAYANAN K,PARIYARAKARAN VEETTIL, KUPPOL,
          PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, PAYYANUR TALUK,KANNUR
          DISTRICT-, PIN - 670307

          BY ADVS.
          I.V.PRAMOD
          AMRUTHA DIWAKAR
          SAIRA SOURAJ P.
          RESMI SAJEEVAN



RESPONDENT:

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

              SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.3460 of 2024
                             2




          Dated this the 23rd    day of May, 2024

                        ORDER

The application is filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in

Crime No.42/2024 of the Payyannur Excise Range Office,

Kannur, registered against him for allegedly committing

the offences punishable under Sections 55(i), 58 and

67B of the Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077( in short, the Act).

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial

custody on 17.3.2024.

2. The gist of the prosecution case, is that; on

16.03.2024, at around 20.10 hours, the accused was

found in possession of 137.500 litres of Indian Made

Foreign Liquour, which was meant for sale in the Union

Territory of Puducherry. The petitioner was arrested at

the spot with the contraband article. Thus, the accused

has committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri. I.V.Pramod., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik the

learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally

innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has

been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material

to substantiate that the petitioner is involved in the case.

In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial

custody since 17.3.2024, the investigation in the case is

not complete and the final report has not been laid.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the

proviso to sub-section (ii) of Section 167 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure ( in short, 'Code'). Hence, the bail

application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application. He submitted that the application is hit by

the rigour under Section 41 A of the Act. Moreover,

since huge contraband is involved in the case, the

investigation is in progress. However, he conceded to

the fact that the final report has not been laid even after

the lapse of 60 days.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner

is that he was found in possession of 137.500 litres of

IMFL, which was meant for sale in the Union Territory

of Puducherry, in contravention of the provisions of the

Act. The fact remains that the petitioner was arrested on

17.3.2024 and the offences alleged against the petitioner

are punishable for a period of less than ten years.

Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not laid the final

report till date.

7. Subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-

167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.--(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is wellfounded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that-- 2 [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate

shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding--

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] [(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;]

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.

[Explanation I.--For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.] [Explanation II.--If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as

required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.] [Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.]

8. Interpreting sub-section (ii) of Section 167 of the

Code, the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable

Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I.,

Bombay [(1994) 5 SCC 410] has observed as follows:-

"53.(2)(b) The "indefeasible right" of the accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on

bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at that

stage."

9. A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme

Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of

Maharashtra [(2001) 5 SCC 453], reiterated the legal

proposition in Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I.,

Bombay (supra). In paragraph 13 (3) it was opined thus:

"13. x x x x x x (3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate."

(emphasis added)

10. In the instant case, as the petitioner has been in

judicial custody since 17.3.2024, all the offences alleged

against the petitioner are punishable for a period of less

than ten years, and the Investigating Officer has not filed

the final report till date. Hence, I am convinced that the

petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail,

since it is his indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of

the Code. Hence, I allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing

the petitioner to be released on bail on executing a bond

for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh 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 petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not commit any offence

while he is on bail;

(iv) 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.

(v) Applications for deletion/modification of the

bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the

court below.

(vi) 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 petitioner even while the

petitioner is 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].

SD/-

rmm/23/5/2024                      C.S.DIAS, JUDGE