Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21800
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
RAVI KIRAN.K.A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./4888/2022
A.ARUNKUMAR, SEETHA S.
Bail may be granted despite statutory restrictions when the accused has no criminal history and the investigation is nearing completion.
Headnote:
Bail - Abkari Act - Sections 58, 67B, 41A - The court granted bail after considering that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, the investigation was nearly complete, and the nature of the liquor involved did not indicate illicit manufacturing, allowing for stricter bail conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of transporting 155 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and had been in judicial custody since his arrest on 04.06.2022. The prosecution argued against bail citing the Abkari Act's stringent provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that, given the absence of prior criminal records and significant progress in the investigation, prolonged incarceration was unnecessary and thus allowed the bail application.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under the provisions of the Abkari Act considering the nature of the charges and his past conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of criminal antecedents, the progress in investigation, and the nature of the liquor involved warranted granting bail despite the statutory rigours prescribed for such offences.
Final Decision: The application for bail is allowed with specific conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2022 This is an application for regular bail. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.97/2022 of Kasaragod Excise Range, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 58 and 67B of Abkari Act .
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.06.2022 at
12.30 a.m., the accused was found transporting 155 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor meant for sale in Karnataka. The petitioner was arrested from the spot and since then he is in judicial custody.
3. Heard Sri. A. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations. He does not have any criminal antecedents. It is pointed out that the investigation of the case is almost over and continued incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by placing reliance of the rigour of Section 41A of the Abkari Act in the matter of granting of bail. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor seeks for dismissal of the application.
5. I have gone through the records and heard the arguments of both sides. It is true that a quantity of 155 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was allegedly transported by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2022 and more than a month has been elapsed. It is discernible that there is substantial progress in the investigation and recovery of articles in connection with the same were also affected.
6. In such circumstances, I am of the view that continued incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. It is true that Section 41A of the Abkari Act provides stringent conditions for considering the application for bail. However, the fact that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents is a relevant aspect to be considered. Apart from the above, the petitioner was found transporting Indian Made Liquor which was imported from Karnataka and it was not illicitly manufactured liquor. The allegation is that it is an illegally imported liquor. The petitioner raises serious contentions against the seizure of the articles and the veracity of such seizure is to be examined during the trial. Moroever, as the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I have no reason to believe that, he would commit the very same offence while on bail. In such circumstances, taking note of all the relevant aspects, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:
1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
2) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Wednesday until the filing of final report.
4) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.
5) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.
6) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
7) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4888/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AI A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-
06-2022 IN C.M.P.NO.1830 OF 2022 OF THE JUDIC
