ORDER : 1. This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.88 of 2024 of Alathur Excise Range, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 67B, 57(a) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act . 3. The prosecution case is that on 24.05.2024, the excise party attached to the Mobile Liquor Testing Laboratory, took samples from toddy, which was transported in a Mahindra Bolero pick up van. On 28.05.2024, when the samples were analysed, it was found that the said toddy was containing the traces of sodium lauryl sulphate. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act is not correct. According to the petitioners, the vessels in which the toddy is stored is washed using detergent. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a content of the detergent. There is no mixing of Sodium lauryl sulfate in the toddy as alleged. The counsel also submitted that, all these cases are registered based on an inspection and seizure of samples on a particular day. There is no other criminal antecedents to the petitioners. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public prosecutor submitted that the 1 st petitioner is the driver and petitioners 2 to 5 are the licensees of group Nos. I, II and V of Karunagappally Excise Range and Group No.IV of Sasthamcotta Excise Range. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. I think there is force in the argument of the Public Prosecutor. But the fact remains that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act is 5 years. The Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [ 2014 (8) SCC 273 ] observed that, even while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the court should take a lenient view if the punishment that can be imposed is only up to 7 years. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “7. xxxxxxxxx 7.1. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “7. xxxxxxxxx 7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. 7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes, envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC.” Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, this Court considered the facts. I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary because the investigation of the case is almost over. The seizure is over. I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary because the investigation of the case is almost over. The seizure is over. Sampling is over and the analyst report is also obtained. Now, what remains is only adducing evidence before the jurisdictional court. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. But I make it clear that, if the petitioners are involved in similar offences in the future, the Investigating OfÏcer can file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, and if such an application is received, the jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders in that application, even though this order is passed by this Court. 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 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 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. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others, (1994 KHC 189 : (1994) 4 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 OfÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate 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. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 6. 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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 ] . 7. 7. 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. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.