Reporter TV editor Anto Augustine denied bail in Wayanad liquor seizure case

A trial court in Wayanad has refused bail to Anto Augustine, Managing Editor of Reporter TV, who was arrested by Excise officials earlier this week in connection with a liquor seizure.

Adheena Biju, Judicial First Class Magistrate-I at Sulthan Bathery, rejected the plea on Friday, holding that the accused was not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail at this stage of the investigation. The court accepted the prosecution's contention, advanced by Assistant Public Prosecutor T. Abul Hassan, that the probe was still at a nascent stage.

In its order, the court said it had weighed the nature and quantity of the alleged recovery, the stage of the investigation, the criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner and other circumstances emerging from the case records before arriving at its decision.

The material placed before the court, it noted, offered a prima facie basis to suggest that the building from which the liquor was seized was in the possession of the petitioner, and that he may have had dominion or control over the contraband allegedly recovered there.

The seizure was carried out by the Kalpetta Excise Circle Inspector, who reportedly found 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 Indian Made Foreign Liquor said to have been bought from a canteen, and 12.750 litres of a liquid containing alcohol. The house is located in the Karappuzha area of Muttill Grama Panchayat in Wayanad district.

The recovery was made during a probe by a Special Investigation Team looking into an alleged sports scam, in which the Reporter Broadcasting Company, which operates Reporter TV, had promised to bring an Argentina team led by former captain Lionel Messi to Kochi for a friendly match.

On September 16, police conducted simultaneous searches at Mr. Augustine's house and at the office of the broadcasting company. Mr. Augustine was arraigned as the first accused in the scam, while the company was listed as the second accused.

Counsel for Mr. Augustine argued that the house from which the liquor was allegedly seized did not belong to him. The court, however, observed that the recovery was made from residential premises, and that the petitioner's precise connection with the premises and the seized articles, the source and intended destination of the liquor, the nature of the alleged liquid, the statements of occupants and other witnesses, and the surrounding circumstances of the recovery were matters requiring further investigation. In these circumstances, the court said, it could not conclude that the petitioner's detention was wholly unnecessary.