Back
Denies to 's Anto Augustine in Liquor Case
The on Friday declined to grant to Anto Augustine, Managing Director of , who was arrested for illegal of over 65 litres of liquor and wine. Justice Kauser Edappagath, hearing the urgent bail application, orally observed that since custody had already been granted to the prosecution, it would not be proper to release Augustine at this stage. The court posted the matter for detailed hearing on Tuesday, , directing the prosecution to produce all supporting documents.
The case has drawn significant attention due to its connection with a high-profile financial fraud investigation into a failed football event featuring Lionel Messi and the Argentinian national team, for which Augustine’s company was the main commercial sponsor. However, the immediate legal battle centres on the excise case registered under Sections 55(a), 55(i), and 58 of the , following the seizure of liquor from a property in Muttil South Village, Wayanad.
Court Questions Evidence
During the initial hearing, Justice Edappagath appeared inclined to grant interim relief after Augustine’s counsel argued that the property from which the liquor was seized had been sold in a auction in and that Augustine no longer held or . The court questioned the state’s reliance on to establish , noting that payment of building tax does not by itself prove . “Suppose this is sold, means follows. Maybe they might have paid tax, that doesn’t mean he is in of the property,” the judge remarked.
When the matter resumed at 4 pm, Director General of Prosecution appeared for the state and opposed interim release, informing the court that the had already moved for and that the had issued a for Saturday. The High Court therefore directed that Augustine remain in until Tuesday, pending further arguments.
Defence Challenges Abkari Charges
In his bail petition, Augustine contended that the trial court had erroneously denied bail based on the premise that the property belonged to him, relying on a from the local authority. “A is a fiscal record maintained for the purpose of levy of property tax. It is not a and is not ,” the petition argued. Augustine stated that he lives with his family at Joy Alukkas Golden Tower in Ernakulam and was not present during the raid, displacing any claim of .
The defence further challenged the invocation of Sections 55(a), 55(i), and 58, arguing that the prosecution documents contain no allegation of . “The word ‘ ’ does not occur anywhere in the , in the , or in any document relied upon by the prosecution. No customer, no consideration, no transaction and no instrument of is spoken to,” the petition stated. It argued that of genuine, duty-paid liquor beyond the permissible quantity would only attract , a .
Procedural Violations Alleged
Augustine’s legal team also raised , alleging that the search was conducted without advance notice to the occupant, in violation of . They claimed that police and revenue officials present before the Excise team arrived did not sign the . Additionally, the was allegedly sent via social media messaging to an office employee instead of directly to Augustine’s family, contrary to Sections 47 and 48 of the .
The petition highlighted that the raid occurred at 2:45 pm on , while the FIR was registered only at 4:26 am on , shortly before Augustine’s arrest at 5 am in Kochi. This timeline, the defence argued, suggests a lack of urgency and raises questions about the legality of the arrest.
Lower Court’s Rejection and Pending Cases
The had earlier rejected Augustine’s bail plea, citing 41 pending criminal cases against him. The defence countered that all 41 cases originated from a single crime (No. 281/2021) registered at , which was subsequently split into 40 separate cases based on identical facts. “ cannot be counted arithmetically. A single transaction, multiplied into a number of crime numbers, cannot be permitted to masquerade as a history of so as to deny liberty in an unconnected case,” the petition argued.
Augustine is on bail in all those matters, with no reported breach of conditions. The defence further submitted that continued custody serves no investigative purpose, as the investigation is primarily documentary, all seized articles are in custody, and samples have been submitted to the court. Augustine has offered to surrender his passport and comply with stringent conditions.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case raises important questions about the use of property tax records as in criminal proceedings. The ’s observation that tax receipts alone do not establish could influence future bail hearings where property is contested. The court’s willingness to examine the factual basis for the Abkari charges—particularly the absence of any allegation of —may also prompt a closer scrutiny of how Section 55(i) is invoked.
Moreover, the dispute over the 41 pending cases highlights the need for courts to distinguish between multiple cases arising from a single transaction and a genuine history of . The High Court’s eventual decision could set a precedent on how such aggregated case lists are treated in .
Conclusion
As the matter stands, Anto Augustine remains in until the next hearing on Tuesday. The court has directed the prosecution to file all relevant documents, including the certificate and tax receipts, to establish the factual matrix. Legal professionals will be watching closely to see how the balances the state’s with the petitioner’s claims of lack of and . The outcome could have significant implications for under the Abkari Act and the of in criminal cases.
