JOY v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the application is allowed, by
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.04.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE CHADAYAMANAGALAM KOLLAM, PIN – 691534 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP C.S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3255/2024 -:2:- Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
O R D E R The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in Crime No.37/2024 of the Excise Range Office, Chadayamangalam, Kollam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) & (2) & 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act,1 of 1077. The petitioner was arrested on 10.04.2024.
The crux of the prosecution case is that: on
10.04.2024 at around 14.15 hours, the accused was found in possession of 14.8 litres of arrack, 34.5 litres of wash, and other utensils for distilling arrack. The accused was arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband articles. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
Heard; Sri. P. Anoop (Mulavana), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. B.A.No.3255/2024 -:3:- Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.04.2024, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing an offence of a similar nature. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. B.A.No.3255/2024 -:4:-
Operative part
On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.04.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, and, further, that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the B.A.No.3255/2024 -:5:- Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is filed.
He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall B.A.No.3255/2024 -:6:- be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663]. DST/23.04.24 Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE //True copy// P.A. To Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the application is allowed, by
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Kerala Abkari Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.