IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7600 of 2008()
1. T.P.NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
2. REJI MATHEW, GENERAL MANAGER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :02/01/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------------------
B.A. No.7600 OF 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of Abkari
Act. According to prosecution, 2 persons were found
consuming liquor in public place and a case was also
registered against them under Section 15C of Abkari Act.
Thereafter on their information, a search was conducted in a
bar hotel and some liquor was seized from the premises of the
bar and as per the allegations, those were intended to be kept
in the bar room and not outside. Therefore the petitioners
committed offence under Section 55(a), being the licensee and
Manager of the bar.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have not committed any offence. The petitioners
are entitled to sell liquor inside the bar room and also in the
roof garden and the restaurant for which they are paying
licence fee. The petitioners are implicated in the offence under
Section 55(a) without any basis. It is also submitted that if at
B.A.No.7600 of 2008
2
all the entire allegations are accepted, the allegations will
amount only to an offence under Section 56(b) of the Abkari
Act, which is a bailable offence. If the petitioners surrender
before the court or they are arrested, it is likely that they will
be remanded, considering the offence as one falling under
Section 55(a) of Abkari Act. Therefore, anticipatory bail may
be granted, it is submitted.
4. It is also pointed out that same arguments were
advanced before learned Sessions Court and the court, as per
the order while dismissing the anticipatory bail application it
was held thus :
“So as per the evidence collected by the
investigating machinery as revealed from the case
diary and also from the report appended with the
case diary, the offence made out can only be one
u/s.56(b) of Abkari Act which is a bailable one. So,
the provisions of Sec.438 Cr.P.C. cannot be
invoked.”
5. Now the only request made by the learned counsel for
petitioners is, having found that the offence involved is only
under Section 56(b), it may be made clear that further purpose
of bail, the offence is to be treated as one under Section 56(b)
B.A.No.7600 of 2008
3
of Abkari Act and some observations to that effect may be
made.
On hearing both sides and on going through the order of
the learned Sessions Judge, having found that offence involved
is only under Section 56(b) of Abkari Act, I find that some
observations have to be made, failing which petitioners will be
put to irreparable injury and loss. Hence it is made clear that
for purpose of bail, the offence involved in this case will be
treated as one falling under Section 56(b) of Abkari Act and
that this observation is made only for the purpose of bail.
Petitioners are directed to surrender before the
Investigating Officer or the Magistrate court
concerned within 7 days from today in which
event, offence will be treated as one falling under
Section 56(b) of Abkari Act for the purpose of
bail.
With this observation, the petition is disposed of.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac