IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/23RD MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1550 OF 2025 CRIME NO.146/2024 OF KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SANTHOSH AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SUDHARMAN, ALUMTHARA PADIYATTATHIL, PRAYAR THEKKU, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN – 690

525.

BY ADVS.

K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH RESPONDENT/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.

2 EXCISE INSPECTOR KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690 502.

BY ADV NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

B.A.No.1550 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.146 of 2024 of Kayamkulam Excise Range, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on

18.12.2024, the accused was found in possession of

2 liters of Indian made foreign liquor.

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

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and even if the entire allegations are accepted, it amounts to only possession of Indian made foreign liquor, which is available in market. The offence under Section

55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act is not attracted.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him from the Investigating OfÏcer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admitted case of prosecution is that, the petitioner was found in possession 2 liters of Indian made foreign liquor, which is available in market. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Whether the ingredients of Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act is there or not is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating OfÏcer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent condition. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on every Monday at

10:00 a.m, till Final Report is filed.

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.

“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to a