The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4535 OF 2025 CRIME NO.31/2025 OF Chittoor Excise Range Office, Palakkad PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: 1 2 SUNIL S/O.RAGHAVAN, MUCHERIYIL HOUSE, MARUTHANPARA DESOM, VANDITHAVALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678534 SIVARAJAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.VELAPPAN, CHERINKAL HOUSE, AARAMPADAM, THATHAMANGALAM (PART) VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678556 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT ( S )/COMPLAINANT-STATE : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 BY ADV. : PP - SEENA C THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4531/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4531 and 4535 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of April, 2025 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),

2023. These two cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners in these bail applications are accused in Crime Nos.30/2025 and 31/2025 of Chittoor Excise Range Office, Palakkad. These cases are registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the Excise BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 4 Officials Inspected the toddy shop of the petitioners and samples of coconut toddy was taken. When the samples were examined, it was found contained the presence of Benadryl. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The 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 of the petitioners is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 5 application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The maximum 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 is not necessary. The petitioners can surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail. BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 6

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 in as much 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 of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 7 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. BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 8 Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following conditions:

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/- (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 BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 9 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 of which they are suspected.

6. The observations and findings in this BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 10 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 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].

8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 11 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4535 OF 2025 CRIME NO.31/2025 OF Chittoor Excise Range Office, Palakkad PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: 1 2 SUNIL S/O.RAGHAVAN, MUCHERIYIL HOUSE, MARUTHANPARA DESOM, VANDITHAVALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678534 SIVARAJAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.VELAPPAN, CHERINKAL HOUSE, AARAMPADAM, THATHAMANGALAM (PART) VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678556 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT ( S )/COMPLAINANT-STATE : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 BY ADV. : PP - SEENA C THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4531/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4531 and 4535 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of April, 2025 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),

2023. These two cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners in these bail applications are accused in Crime Nos.30/2025 and 31/2025 of Chittoor Excise Range Office, Palakkad. These cases are registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the Excise BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 4 Officials Inspected the toddy shop of the petitioners and samples of coconut toddy was taken. When the samples were examined, it was found contained the presence of Benadryl. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The 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 of the petitioners is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 5 application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The maximum 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 is not necessary. The petitioners can surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail. BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 6

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 in as much 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 of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 7 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. BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 8 Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following conditions:

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/- (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 BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 9 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 of which they are suspected.

6. The observations and findings in this BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 10 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 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].

8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, BA Nos.4531 & 4535 of 2025 11 jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE