Vineeth Vijayan vs State Of Kerala

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 accused in Crime No.88/2026 of the Excise Range Office, Erumeli, Kottayam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1 of 1077.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant possessed 2 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and conducted sale thereof in the courtyard of his rented house bearing No.504/XII in Cheruvally Village at 01:20 p.m. on 28.08.2026. Four liquor bottles were also seized. The applicant and another person who purchased the liquor ran away. The applicant thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

I have heard Sri.Sijo Pathaparambil Joseph, 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 contraband was seized from the house of the applicant. On seeing the Excise party, the applicant ran away from the spot.

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.