Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2023 CRIME NO.101 OF 2022 OF KATTAKKADA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: BABU AGED 50 YEARS, PUTHUVALPUTHAN VEEDU, UROOTTAMBALAM P.O, MARANALLOOR DESOM, KATTAKADA TALUK NOW RESIDING AT NOTARIKATHU VEEDU, UMMANKUZHY KANDALA PO, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 699512 BY ADV SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI P G MANU (SR PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2023 This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.101/2022 of Kattakkada Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials form part of the case diary, placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The prosecution case is that, at 16.00 hours on
25.12.2022, the Investigating Officer found 6.80 litre of Arrack, 29.25 litre of Wash along with utensils at the residential house of the petitioner, for the purpose of sale. Accordingly the contraband was recovered. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of Kerala Abkari Act.
4. While pressing for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is innocent. He further submitted that, the petitioner and his wife are living separately and the alleged contraband was recovered from the house, where the petitioner's wife has been residing. Therefore, the petitioner has no role in the occurrence.
5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant
of bail to the petitioner and submitted that, the contraband was recovered from the residential house of the petitioner and since the petitioner was not available at the time of recovery. Therefore, he could not be arrested. But, arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. I have perused the recovery mahazar detailing the
recovery. The same is to the effect that, search was conducted at the residential house of the petitioner on getting secret information that, the petitioner herein had possessed Arrack for the purpose of sale. On search, 6.80 litre of Arrack, 29.25 litre of Wash along with utensils were recovered and the wife of the petitioner given statement that the same was kept by the petitioner.
7. On perusal of the case diary along with the mahazar, it
is crystal clear that, the contraband items were seized from the residential house of the petitioner. Thus, prima facie, the complicity of the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution is well made out and in such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation are inevitable part of the investigation to accomplish meaningful investigation. It is relevant to note that, the petitioner is a person who was convicted and sentenced for a period of one year and payment of fine of Rupees One Lakh in S.C. No. 997/2009 arising out of crime No. 75/2006 of Kattakkada Excise Range Office.
8. Therefore, release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail
would be fatal to the investigation. Hence, anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioner is found to be not sustainable. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN SK JUDGE