IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 484 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1/2025 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

SALIM AGED 64 YEARS S/O MOOSA RAWTHER, REJEENA MANZIL, ELAMPAZHANOOR P.O, KADAKKAL, PIN - 695314 BY ADVS.

RAJITHA V.K P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 BY ADV.

SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

B.A.No.484 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 07^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1/2025 of Chadayamangalam Excise Range Office, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused was found in possession of 1.5 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.

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

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct and the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The allegation is that the petitioner was found in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor which is available in the market. Whether the petitioner committed the offence under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating authority. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Since there is no criminal antecedents to the petitioner, I think this bail application can be allowed on 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. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau