Sudhanandhan v. State of Kerala

BA No.4309 of 2025 1 ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4309 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.30/2025 OF Kayamkulam Excise Range Office, ``` ## **`Alappuzha`** ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:`** ``` SUDHANANDHAN AGED 78 YEARS ``` ``` S/O VELUTHAKUNJU, SUDHABHAVANAM, KANDALLUR CITY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK, PUTHIYAVILA MURI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 690531 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN SANAL C.S VISHAK K.V. ANU T.H. RENJITH K.R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S )/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`BY ADV:`** ## **`SR PP - NOUSHAD K A`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.4309 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [94 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:29068<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------** **BA No.4309 of 2025** **-------------------------------------------Dated this the 03[rd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.30/2025 of Kayamkulam Excise Range Office, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 55(i) and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused was found in possession of 56.250 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Hence, it is alleged that the BA No.4309 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a 78 year old Military Man. He can purchase Indian Made Foreign Liquor from Military Canteen. He purchased the article from the Military Canteen. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. He also submitted that a defence person can keep only 24 bottles of 750ml each. BA No.4309 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the contraband seized is having a seal in which it is stated that “for use of defence personnel only”. Admittedly, the petitioner is a defence person. Whether he tried to sell the same is a matter of evidence. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. Moreover, the petitioner is aged 78 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement** [2019 (16) SCALE 870],_ after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail BA No.4309 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 9. Recently the Apex Court in _**Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another** [2021(5)KHC 353]_ considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder. “12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 BA No.4309 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29068` SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” ## 10. In _**Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of**_ _**Investigation** [2023 KHC 6961],_ the Apex Court observed that, even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from_ BA No.4309 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` _today and shall undergo interrogation._ _2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned._ _3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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._ BA No.4309 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` _4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court._ _5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he_ _is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected._ _6. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in_ _**Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also._ _7. 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_ BA No.4309 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29068 ``` _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]._ _8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated._ nvj **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**