KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday denied interim bail to Anto Augustine, managing editor of Reporter TV, who was arrested by Excise officials for allegedly possessing liquor beyond the legally permissible limit under the Kerala Abkari Act.
However, the court orally questioned the prosecution on why Augustine’s continued detention was required when the alleged contraband had already been recovered.
The petitioner argued that the property from which the contraband was seized had already been sold in 2022 and was no longer in his possession.
Opposing the bail, the prosecution argued that in March 2026, the petitioner had paid property tax for the building in his name.
The prosecution has moved an application seeking his custody, and the case is posted before the Magistrate on Saturday for production of the accused, as submitted by the prosecution.
The court orally observed: “Suppose this building is sold, the possession follows. Maybe he might have paid tax. That doesn’t mean that he owns the property. Produce some other document to show that he is actually in possession.”
“Since the custody application is moved, it is not proper on my part to grant interim bail at this stage,” Justice Kauser Edappagath said.
The court sought instructions from the prosecutor and posted the matter for final hearing on Tuesday. The petitioner argued that he is the sole accused in the case and has been in judicial custody since September 17.
His bail application was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery, on Friday morning.
Soon after the order, he approached the High Court challenging the Magistrate court’s decision.
According to the prosecution, on September 16 at about 2.45 p.m., the Excise Circle Inspector, Kalpetta, and his team searched a room on the first floor of a building at Muttil Grama Panchayat, Karapuzha.
They allegedly recovered 43.850 litres of Foreign Made Foreign Liquor, 1.224 litres of Foreign Made Foreign Wine, 6.250 litres of KSBC wine, 750 ml of IMFL stated to be canteen stock marked “for defence only”, and 12.750 litres of a liquid containing alcohol.
According to the petition, the property comprising 14.67 ares of land along with the building had been mortgaged by the petitioner to the State Bank of India.
The property was subsequently put up for sale by the bank’s authorised officer under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
In the e-auction held on June 30, 2022, the property was sold to another person, and a sale certificate was issued on September 13, 2022.
The petitioner therefore argued that he had neither title to nor possession of the building for more than four years before the alleged detection.
The petitioner was also admittedly absent from the scene.
The Crime and Occurrence Report itself records that he was not arrested at the time of detection because he was not present at the scene of the alleged offence.
No statement from any occupant, neighbour or independent witness connects him with the room searched, or the articles seized.
The petitioner argued that conscious possession, which is the foundation of the offences alleged, was therefore absent.
The petitioner further contended that the Magistrate court had declined bail principally on the strength of a Building Certificate issued by the Muttil Grama Panchayat, holding that the Sale Certificate could not be treated as conclusive at that stage.
A Building Certificate is a record maintained for the levy of property tax and is neither a document of title nor, according to the petitioner, evidence of possession. It continues to reflect the name of the person originally assessed until the transferee applies for mutation.
