Kerala High Court
Biju vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:12488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
BIJU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O KOCHUNNI THALAVALAPPIL , NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH ,
SRAYIKKADAVU ROAD , NANNAMUKKU , MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679575
BY ADVS.
AJMAL V. A.
A.C.ARFANA
FATHIMA V.A.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA THROUGH EXCISE INSPECTOR , EXCISE RANGE
OFFICE , PONNANI , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1716 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:12488
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1716 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.
19/2025 of Ponnani Excise Range. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.
67B and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was
found in possession of 300 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor
(No. 1 Mc Dowell's Indian Brandy) in a 1.5 litre plastic bottle.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
2025:KER:12488
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made
out. The admitted prosecution case is that the petitioner was
found in possession of only 300 ml of Indian Made Foreign
Liquor, which is available in market. The counsel submitted
that there is no material produced by the prosecution to show
that the petitioner is selling the liquor. The Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor
submitted that as per the instruction received by him from the
investigating officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against
the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The admitted prosecution
case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in
possession of 300 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is
available in market. Whether the offence under Sec. 55(i) of the
Abkari Act is attracted in such situation, is a matter to be
investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the
same. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.
2025:KER:12488
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think
the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent
conditions.
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. 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
2025:KER:12488
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."
9. 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.
10. 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:
2025:KER:12488
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, he 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 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 him from
2025:KER:12488
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 he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which he is suspected.
6. 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].
7. If any of the above conditions
2025:KER:12488
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
SKS
