The court emphasizes that the requirement for custodial interrogation must be justified beyond mere assertion by the State.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.155 of 2025 of Changanacherry Excise Range Office, Kottayam, registered for the offence punishable under Section 55 (i) of the Abkari Act .

3. According to the prosecution, on 01.09.2025, the accused was found in possession of 2 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor [for short, ‘the IMFL’], kept for the purpose of sale at his residence and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard Sri.Sijo Pathaparambil Joseph, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused and he may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. Petitioner is alleged to have kept IMFL for sale at his house on a dry day. Though the allegations are serious, there is no evidence that there was any intent to sell the alleged liquor. A person is legally entitled to possess upto 3 litres of IMFL in the State of Kerala. Petitioner is stated to have possessed only 2 litres of IMFL. Possession of liquor in excess of the permitted quantity may attract, at the most, an offence under Section 41A of the Abkari Act , which is a bailable offence. However, even that provision is not applicable in the present case. In the absence of any material indicating an intent to sell, the rigour of Section 63 of the does not apply. Hence, this Court is of the view that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

8. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [(2020) 5 SCC 1] , it was held that, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that petitioner can be released on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) In the event of the petitioner being arrested in Crime No.155 of 2025 of Changacherry Excise Range Office, Kottayam, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if he is so required in writing and shall co-operate with the investigation.

(c) Petitioner shall not destroy or tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any other similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.