AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.
The applicant is the sole accused in O.R. No.98/2026 of Excise Range Office, Kuthiyathodu, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1 of 1077.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.08.2026 at about 10:40 p.m., on the basis of the reliable information that the applicant was in possession of illicit arrack in the open-sided work area of his residence namely, Munduthottil House, Erappuzha Muri, Ward No.III of Perumbalam Panchayat, Perumbalam Village, Cherthala Taluk, the respondent and party proceeded to the alleged spot and conducted search. During search, they seized 600 ml of illicit arrack from there. The applicant thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
I have heard Sri.Kuriakose A.C., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V.Vinay, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 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. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.
The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The mahazar would show that the contraband was seized from the kitchen of the applicant’s house. The applicant ran away from the scene upon seeing the Excise party.
The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked.
The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.