The High Court · 2025

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.4313 of 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4313 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.28/2025 of Chittur Excise Range Office, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The 1st petitioner is the employee and the 2nd petitioner is the licensee of the toddy shop No.59 of Chittur Excise Range. The excise officials took samples of toddy from toddy shop No.59 of Chittur Excise range. When the analyst report came, the presence of Benadryl was found. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the B.A.No.4313 of 2025 3 petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned 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 learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

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

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged 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 B.A.No.4313 of 2025 4 documentary evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail after imposing 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 B.A.No.4313 of 2025 5 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 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.

11. 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: B.A.No.4313 of 2025 6

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from 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/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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 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 them from B.A.No.4313 of 2025 7 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 of which they are suspected.

6. 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.

7. 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 B.A.No.4313 of 2025 8 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].

8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the 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 DM

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.4313 of 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4313 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.28/2025 of Chittur Excise Range Office, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The 1st petitioner is the employee and the 2nd petitioner is the licensee of the toddy shop No.59 of Chittur Excise Range. The excise officials took samples of toddy from toddy shop No.59 of Chittur Excise range. When the analyst report came, the presence of Benadryl was found. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the B.A.No.4313 of 2025 3 petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned 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 learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

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

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged 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 B.A.No.4313 of 2025 4 documentary evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail after imposing 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 B.A.No.4313 of 2025 5 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 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.

11. 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: B.A.No.4313 of 2025 6

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from 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/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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 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 them from B.A.No.4313 of 2025 7 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 of which they are suspected.

6. 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.

7. 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 B.A.No.4313 of 2025 8 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].

8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the 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 DM