PAIGOTTU VEETIL BENNY Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 92/2012 of the Alakode Excise Range, Kannur District. The said crime was registered against him on the allegation that he was found possessing 1.5 liters of Indian made foreign liquor. He was arrested on the spot by the excise party and the liquor bottles were seized from his possession. The alleged detection was made on 19.10.2012. While undergoing custody, he was granted bail by the Court of Session, Thalassery as per order dated 6.11.2012 in C.M.C.No. 1947/2012. Bail was granted on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the accused shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 am and 10 am on all Mondays, till final report is filed. Much later the learned Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the Court of Session as Crl.M.P.No. 73/2013 with a prayer to cancel the bail on the ground of failure on the part of the accused to report before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the conditions for bail. After hearing both sides the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said application and cancelled the bail by order dated 10.1.2013. The said order of cancellation of bail is sought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in this proceedings.

(2.) IT was submitted that investigation in the crime is already over and that the quantity of liquor found in the possession of the accused is just 1.5 liters of Indian made foreign liquor. Bail was granted to him after 17 days from the date of arrest. The grievance of the petitioner is that the grounds stated by him for the alleged non -compliance were not seriously considered or looked into by the Court of Session. The explanation of the petitioner is that when he approached the Station House Officer as directed by the Court in the bail order, he was not allowed to sign and he was sent back saying that the bail order was not received in the Police Station. On a subsequent occasion also he was sent back, and later he happened to be hospitalised. The genuineness of this explanation was not looked into by the Court of Sessions, he says. Any way, in the particular facts and circumstances where investigation is over the bail granted to the petitioner can be revived. Conditions were imposed for bail with the object of averting any possibility of interference in investigation. When the investigation is already over, and when the petitioner has some explanation for his absence, though not fully genuine or believable, his request to revive the bail can be allowed.