Anto Augustine vs State Of Kerala

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.154/2026 of Excise Range Office, Kalpetta, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 55(a), 55(i) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1 of 1077.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 16.09.2026 at about 2:45 p.m., the Excise Circle Inspector, Kalpetta, and party conducted a search of a room on the first floor of the building bearing No.10/603 of the Muttil Grama Panchayat, known as “Moongananiyil Veedu”, in the Karapuzha area of Muttil South Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District, and recovered 43.850 litres of Foreign Made Foreign Liquor, 1.224 litres of Foreign Made Foreign Wine, 6.250 litres of KSBC wine, 750 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor stated to have been purchased from the canteen and marked “for defence only”, and 12.750 litres of a liquid described as containing alcohol.

I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel as well as Sri.M.P. Shameem Ahamed, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.T.Asaf Ali, the learned DGP. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned DGP submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 17.09.2026. The recovery has been effected. The applicant was given on police custody for 24 hours also. Admittedly, the contraband was seized from a building which was owned by the applicant. However, the applicant has raised a specific contention that he has mortgaged the property where the building is situated with the bank while he availed a loan and pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the property was sold in the year 2022 and hence he is not in possession of the building. The applicant relies on Annexure A3 document to substantiate the same. However, the learned DGP, relying on the land revenue receipt and also the document issued by the concerned Village Officer, submitted that the property is still in the possession of the applicant. The learned DGP further submitted that all other documents, such as electricity, water, voters’ lists, etc., stand in the name of the applicant. Countering the same, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even though the ownership has been transferred, in the revenue records, the mutation has not been effected. At any rate, there is a serious dispute regarding the applicant’s ownership, possession and occupation over the building from where the contraband was seized. Even though the applicant has criminal antecedents, he is not involved in any other crime of similar nature. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -