IMPORTANT POINT
Arrest must be justified and not routine; bail is the rule, not the exception, especially when maximum punishment is limited.

ORDER :

(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)

These Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected and therefore I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

2. B.A. No.3410/2025 is filed by the petitioners apprehending arrest in Crime No.100/2024 of Pattambi Excise Range Office, Palakkad. B.A. No.3401/2025 is filed by the petitioners apprehending arrest in Crime No.96/2024 of Pattambi Excise Range Office, Palakkad. Similarly, the petitioners in B.A. No.3404/2025 is apprehending arrest in Crime No.97/2024 of Pattambi Excise Range Office, Palakkad.

3. The prosecution case in brief in all these cases is that, samples were taken from three different toddy shops under the Pattambi Excise Range. When the samples were analysed, the analyst reported that it contains Sodium lauryl sulfate. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act .

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act is not correct. According to the petitioners, the vessels in which the toddy is stored is washed using detergent. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a content of the detergent. There is no mixing of Sodium lauryl sulfate in the toddy as alleged. The counsel also submitted that, all these cases are registered based on an inspection and seizure of samples on a particular day. There is no other criminal antecedents to the petitioners.

6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail applications. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the 2^nd petitioner is common in all these bail applications. He is the licensee of the three toddy shops and he is the beneficiary also. It is submitted that the three toddy shops are situated at different places. According to the Public Prosecutor, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted because it is impossible that the same detergent finds a place in all the samples taken from three different toddy shops. In addition to this, in other toddy shops under the 2^nd petitioner were also inspected on the same day and the same Sodium lauryl sulfate was detected in the sample. That itself shows that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. I think there is force in the argument of the Public Prosecutor. But the fact remains that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act is 5 years. The Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [ 2014 (8) SCC 273 ] observed that, even while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the court should take a lenient view if the punishment that can be imposed is only up to 7 years. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“7. xxxxxxxxx

7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one may reach based o