Mijo vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the sole accused in Crime No.80/2023 of Anthikkad Excise Range Office, Thrissur, alleging him to have committed the offences under Sections 55(i) and (h) and 67B of the Abkari Act (for short, the Act). The petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2023.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 23.12.2023 at 6.00 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 5 litres of Indian made foreign liquor and 8 litres of wine for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been in judicial custody since 23.12.2023. The investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. He is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.12.2023 and the investigation in the case is practically complete.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.12.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would flee from justice, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh 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 Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier. 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 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].