IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3432 OF 2025 CRIME NO.28/2025 OF Chadayamangalam Excise Range Office, Kollam PETITIONER/S:

VIJAYAKUMARI AGED 60 YEARS D/O SADASIVAN, PUTHUVILA HOUSE, KUMMIL, MANGODU, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691536 BY ADV M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 HRITHWIK C S-SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

B.A.No.3432 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2025

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.28/2025 of Chadyamangalam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that; the accused was found in possession of 1 litre of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of the same for the purpose of sale. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that;

the petitioner can possess 3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants her bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he conceded that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, the allegation is that, she was found in possession of the 1 litre of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which is available in market. Whether the petitioner was possessing the same for the purpose of sale is a matter to be investigated. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

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 arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

10.