AN ACCUSED CAN BE GRANTED BAIL IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACCUSED’S FURTHER DETENTION IS UNNECESSARY.

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.38/2024 of the Hosdurg Excise Range Office, Kasargod, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act,1 of 1077 ( in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner was arrested on 11.3.2024.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 11.3.2024, at around 17.20 hours, the accused was found in possession of 8 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

3. Heard Sri. T.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.3.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.3.2024, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

6. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.3.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, I am of the view that petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier.

He shall also 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 him 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) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) 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.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below.

2024:KER:24626 B.A.No.2315 of 2024 (vii) 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 Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].