Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 20 OF 2022 PETITIONER: ROJAN CHACHO AGED 61 YEARS S/O. CHACKOP, PUTHET HOUSE, BYPASS ROAD, PADIVATOM, KOCHI - 682024. BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031, (CRIME NO.1/2022, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 1/2022, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) SRI T.R.RENJITH - P.P THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, the 2nd accused in Crime No.1/2022 registered by Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, seeks Anticipatory Bail in this crime where the prosecution alleges offence punishable under Section 56(b) and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case is that 300 ml of IMFL was recovered from the hotel run by the petitioner from the custody of the 1st accused, who is the barman. The 1st accused was arrested and later released on bail and the investigation is going on.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the 2nd accused is arrayed in this case only on the ground that he is the licensee of the hotel. He expressed his willingness to co-operate with the investigation highlighting that the contraband is only 300ml.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, though opposed anticipatory bail, he conceded that the contraband is only 300ml. The learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the offence alleged to have been committed is serious and therefore, Anticipatory Bail cannot be granted, since the contraband recovered did not tally with the purchase list and the price list, which were also seized.
5. On perusal of the prosecution allegations in the context of
the facts in the case as discussed, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted Anticipatory Bail, since effective investigation is possible if direction is given to the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation in the matter of interrogation. Therefore, this petition stands allowed on the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 17.05.2022 between 9 a.m and 11 a.m. On such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner and in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the day of arrest itself. On such production, the jurisdictional
Magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In case the petitioner fails to surrender before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest the petitioner forthwith. ii. The petitioner shall co-operate with Covid-19 restrictions. iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, till the final report is filed. iv. The petitioner, 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. v. The petitioner is specifically directed not to involve in any crimes during the currency of bail and any such involvement or violation of the above conditions, if reported or came to the notice of the court will be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE NP