The court emphasizes that without credible evidence, especially against a senior citizen accused of serious offenses, pre-arrest bail may be warranted.

ORDER This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.264/2025 of Excise Range Office, Ettumanoor, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 55 (g), 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant and the accused No. 2 manufactured arrack on the Western side of the shed situated in the North – Eastern part of the Northern courtyard of residential building No.IXI/511 belonged to applicant No. 1, at Ayamanam Village at 02.20 P.M, on 20-12-2025. The offence was detected by the Excise Enforcement and Anti- Narcotics Special Squad, Kottayam. The Excise party seized 35 litres of arrack, utensils kept for manufacturing arrack including a brass vessel having 70- litre capacity, a pot (Illichatty) and uruli round vessel having 15 litre capacity and cash worth Rs.180/-.

4. I have heard Smt. Renijames, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja V. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The applicant is a senior citizen, aged 75 years. It is not in dispute that he is the owner of the property where the shed was situated. However, his definite case is that he is residing with his daughter at Bangalore for the last three years. The applicant and the accused No.2 were not arrested at the spot. According to the prosecution, upon seeing the excise officials, the applicant and accused No.2 ran away from the spot. Even though the police officials ran behind them, they escaped in an auto rickshaw. This is the version of the police. It is further alleged that while running, the accused No.2 lost his purse from his pocket, which was seized and upon verification, it was confirmed that it belonged to accused No.2. Thus, there is some material against accused No.2 to connect him with the crime.

7.The prosecution alleges that the witnesses who were present at the time of the inspection by the excise party identified the applicant as the person who ran away from the shed. I went through the statement of the witnesses. There is no such identification. That apart, it is quite unbelievable that an excise party consisting of three to four persons ran behind a 75 year old person and could not apprehend him. It appears that he has been arrayed as accused on the basis that he is the owner of the property. In this circumstances, I am of the view that rigour under Section 41(A) of the Abkari Act cannot be applied against the applicant. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as