Reji K V and Robin v. State of Kerala and The Excise Inspector, Cherppu

B.A.No. 306 of 2024 1 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 306 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.65/2023 OF CHERPPU EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1REJI K V, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. VASUKUTTY PANICKER, RAJBHAVAN HOUSE, THIRUVATHUKKAL DESAM, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686003 2ROBIN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. ACHANKUNJU,ROBIN VILLA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001 BY ADV K.SIMOD SIVAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE CHERPPU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No. 306 of 2024 2 Dated this the 1[st] day of February, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 2 and 3 in O.R. No.65/2023 of the Excise Range Office, Cherppu, registered against the accused (six in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 67B and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioners were arrested on 09.12.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 09.12.2023, the excise officials raided an illicit liquor manufacturing unit at Peringottukkara and arrested the accused 1 to 6 from the spot. The inspection was conducted after receiving secret information regarding the illicit manufacturing of the contraband, which was B.A.No. 306 of 2024 3 operated close to the restaurant, and the contraband was seized with equipments. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Simon Sivan. K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema. T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The accused 4, 6, 1, and 5 have been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session, Thrissur, as per orders in Crl.M.C.Nos.1861/2023, 1887/2023 and 61/2024, on the finding that the illicit liquor was not seized from the conscious possession of the accused, but from two vehicles that were parked in the service area of B.A.No. 306 of 2024 4 the restaurant. Therefore, the court below found that there are grounds to presume that rigour under Section 41A of the Abkari Act would not apply to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners may also be granted the benefit of the findings of the Court of Session in the above said orders. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that 1072 liters of illicit liquor were seized from the conscious possession of the accused. The investigation in the case is in progress. However, she conceded to the fact that the accused 4, 6, 1, and 5 have already been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session, as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners. B.A.No. 306 of 2024 5 6. On an anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 09.12.2023, that the accused 4, 6, 1 and 5 have been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session on the specific finding that the illicit liquor was not seized from the possession of the accused and that there are reasonable grounds to presume that the accused have not committed the offences alleged against them, and therefore, the rigour under Section 41 A of the Abkari Act is not applicable, and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioners herein are also entitled to the benefit of the said findings and consequently be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application subject to stringent conditions. B.A.No. 306 of 2024 6 In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 12 p.m for a period of three months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; B.A.No. 306 of 2024 7 (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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 B.A.No. 306 of 2024 **==> picture [8 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** 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]. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/01.02.24