SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36168

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SOPHY THOMAS, J
RAJESH U.K, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
Bail Appl./6254/2021



Anticipatory bail can be granted when evidence does not substantiate the accusation and custodial interrogation is not required.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Cr.P.C. Section 438, Abkari Act Section 55(g) - Court granted anticipatory bail as no evidence connected the petitioner to the crime and no custodial interrogation was necessary.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., being accused of possessing 50 litres of wash for brewing arrack under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. The petitioner claimed no possession or connection to the wash.

Finding of the Court:

The court found insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, noting he was not found in possession of the contraband. With no prior offenses reported, custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail given the lack of evidence linking him to the alleged crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of substantial evidence for custodial interrogation and prior convictions, anticipatory bail is warranted.

Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.

O R D E R

This is a petition for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 63/2021 of Sreekandapuram Excise Range Office, Kannur registered under Section 55 (g) of Abkari Act .

3. The prosecution case is that on 04.06.2021 at 1.30 p.m, the petitioner was found in possession of 50 litres of wash in a can allegedly kept for brewing arrack, near the bathroom of the house bearing No.MP-IV/360 of Mayyil Grama Panchayath.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. According to the petitioner, nothing was seized from his possession and he has no connection with the wash seized by the excise officials. He was falsely implicated on the basis of false information given by his enemies. His house is 4kms away from the place of occurrence. He is a lorry driver having 2 little children and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Investigation is practically over and there is no need for any custodial interrogation. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was possessing the wash, but on seeing the excise party he left the can and ran away. Admittedly, the wash was not seized from his possession or from his house. No antecedents are reported against him. The incident occurred on 04.06.2021 and the contraband was seized. So there is no scope for any custodial interrogation for the purpose of investigation. The available facts and circumstances are not sufficient to point toward the guilt of the petitioner. Since no antecedents are reported we cannot think that he will repeat similar offences while on bail. So this Court is inclined to release him on anticipatory bail on the following terms.

(i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on 10.02.2022 at 10:00 a.m. The Investigating Officer can interrogate him and collect evidence and materials in his possession useful for the investigation. (ii) In the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

(iii) Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(iv) He 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 disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(v) He shall not tamper with the evidence.

(vi) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the Jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top