KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Anto Augustine, managing editor of Reporter TV, who is accused of allegedly possessing liquor beyond the legally permissible limit under the Kerala Abkari Act.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that there is a serious dispute regarding Anto Augustine’s possession of the building from which the contraband was seized. However, the court held that his continued detention is not necessary.
During the hearing, the court orally observed that it had granted bail in all IMFL cases. Director General of Prosecutions T. Asaf Ali, however, submitted that this was not an ordinary IMFL case and that the accused was "a man of money and might."
The court observed that continued detention was not necessary as the accused had already been subjected to police custody and the recovery had been effected.
When the court asked about his criminal antecedents, the DGP submitted that the accused was involved in 41 cases.
When asked why further detention was necessary, the DGP replied that the accused was not cooperating with the investigation and that the investigation had reached a standstill.
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.
The DGP, however, argued that in March 2026, the petitioner had paid property tax for the building in his name, indicating that the property was still in his possession. He also pointed out that the petitioner’s name appeared on the voters’ list at the same address. The electricity and water bills were also in Anto’s name.
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 that was searched or with 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’s 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.
