Kerala High Court
Radhamani vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.481 of 2025
1
2025:KER:10127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 481 OF 2025
CRIME NO.4/2025 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
RADHAMANI
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O RAJENDRAN, RATHEESH SADANAM, AMBALAMUKKU,
ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691533
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RADHIKA S.ANIL
NIJAZ JALEEL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.481 of 2025
2
2025:KER:10127
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.481 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.4/2025 of
Chadayamangalam Excise Range Office, Kollam. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence
punishable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused was
found in possession of 4.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is not correct and the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
2025:KER:10127
her bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, no
criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner
is a lady. The allegation is that, she was found in possession of
Indian Made Foreign Liquor which is available in the market.
Whether the petitioner committed the offence under Section
55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act is a matter to be investigated by
the Investigating authority. I do not want to make any
observation about the same. Since there is no criminal
antecedents to the petitioner, I think this bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions.
8. 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
2025:KER:10127
is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the
accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
9. 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 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."
2025:KER:10127
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed
that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it
is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
11. 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 and shall undergo
interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the
Investigating Officer propose to arrest the
petitioner, she 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
2025:KER:10127
concerned.
3. 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 her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave
India without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit
an offence similar to the offence of which
she is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which she is suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it
would be well within the powers of the
2025:KER:10127
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].
7. 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. The prosecution and
the victim are at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any
of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
