HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
LAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 6683/2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 55(i) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act - The court emphasized the indefeasible right to bail after 60 days of custody without a completed investigation, allowing the petitioner’s release on statutory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing illicit arrack and had been in judicial custody for over 60 days without the investigation being completed or a final report filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code due to the prolonged custody without investigation completion.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the delay in investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an indefeasible right to bail accrues after 60 days of custody without a completed investigation, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Final Decision: The application for bail is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail.
O R D E R
The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, for short) by the sole accused in Crime No.97/2024 of the Nilambur Excise Range Office, Malappuram, which is registered against her for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 55 (i) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act , 1 of 1077 ( in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.06.2024.
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that:
on 28.06.2024, at around 11.55 hours, the accused was found in conscious possession of 5.100 litres of illicit arrack, which was meant for sale. The accused was arrested on the spot with the contraband article.
Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against her. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than 60 days, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail in the above crime as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender, since she is involved in four other crimes of a similar nature. In one crime she has already been convicted and appeal is pending before this Court. Therefore, the application is hit by the rigour under Section 41A of the Act. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of her committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6.The prosecution case against the petitioner is that, she was found in conscious possession of 5.100 litres of illicit arrack, which was meant for sale in the contravention of the provisions of the Act. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last more than 60 days, the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable for a period of 10 years, the investigation in the case is not complete, and the final report has not been laid. Therefore, I am convinced that the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail.
7. Subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is wellfounded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that— 2 [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifte
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.