✦ High Court of India · 01 Apr 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 01 Apr 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
01 Apr 2025
Bench
P V KUNHIKRISHNAN
Length
1,383 words

Cited in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 2 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4162 OF 2025 CRIME NO.26/2025 OF CHITTOOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: 1 2 KUMARAN R AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, THAZHATHUPADAM DESOM, VILAYODI, PERUVATTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678 103. SUMESH M AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MANIKKAN, CHOZHIYAKKADE, VANDITHAVALAM P.O, PATTANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678 534. BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN – 682 031. BY ADV C.S HRITHWICK, SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4156/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 C O M M O N O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These two bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.25/2025 and 26/2025 on the files of the Chittoor Excise Range, Palakkad District. The 1st petitioner in these two bail applications are the salesman of the Toddy shop and the 2nd petitioner in B.A No.4162/2025 is the convener of the Employees Committee of Toddy Shop No.33 in Group No.VI and the 2nd petitioner in B.A No.4156/2025 is the licensee of that toddy shop No.32 Group No.VII. The excise officials took samples of toddy from toddy shop Nos.32 and 33 of B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 4 Chittur Excise range. When analysis report came, it was found presence of Benadryl. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. It is also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, custodial interrogation is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious.

6. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The maximum B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 5 punishment that can be imposed is imprisonment of 5 years. Admittedly, the analyst report came. No further investigation is necessary in this case, because the prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. The petitioners can surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there shall be a direction to the petitioners to release on bail.

7. 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. B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 6

8. 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 B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 7 investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 8 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.

3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 of which they are suspected. 9

6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.

8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 10 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AMR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 2 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4162 OF 2025 CRIME NO.26/2025 OF CHITTOOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: 1 2 KUMARAN R AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, THAZHATHUPADAM DESOM, VILAYODI, PERUVATTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678 103. SUMESH M AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MANIKKAN, CHOZHIYAKKADE, VANDITHAVALAM P.O, PATTANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678 534. BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN – 682 031. BY ADV C.S HRITHWICK, SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4156/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 C O M M O N O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These two bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.25/2025 and 26/2025 on the files of the Chittoor Excise Range, Palakkad District. The 1st petitioner in these two bail applications are the salesman of the Toddy shop and the 2nd petitioner in B.A No.4162/2025 is the convener of the Employees Committee of Toddy Shop No.33 in Group No.VI and the 2nd petitioner in B.A No.4156/2025 is the licensee of that toddy shop No.32 Group No.VII. The excise officials took samples of toddy from toddy shop Nos.32 and 33 of B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 4 Chittur Excise range. When analysis report came, it was found presence of Benadryl. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. It is also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, custodial interrogation is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious.

6. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The maximum B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 5 punishment that can be imposed is imprisonment of 5 years. Admittedly, the analyst report came. No further investigation is necessary in this case, because the prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. The petitioners can surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there shall be a direction to the petitioners to release on bail.

7. 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. B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 6

8. 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 B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 7 investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 8 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.

3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 of which they are suspected. 9

6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.

8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, B.A Nos.4156 and 4162 of 2025 10 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AMR

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments