IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6628 of 2008()
1. MOHAN KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 6628 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of October,2008
O R D E R
Petition for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 8 (2), 55(a) and
(i) of the Abkari Act read with section 120B IPC. According to
prosecution, huge quantities of brandy, rum, beer, coloured
arrack and Rs.1,03,000/- were seized from a room attached to a
hotel. First accused was arrested from the room. On questioning,
it was revealed that petitioner who is in charge of Bevarages
Corporation retail shop supplied the liquor to him without proper
bills. Hence, crime was registered and petitioner was implicated
as 2nd accused. The incident occurred on 3-10-2008 and
petitioner was arrested on the same day.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner was working in the Beverages Corporation for the past
15 years and there is absolutely no allegation against him. He has
no criminal antecedents. It is not possible to sell huge quantity of
liquor without proper bills. If at all any incident has happened, the
Beverages Corporation will definitely take action against
petitioner. But, no such action has been taken so far. Every day
the billing is done and the management is satisfied by the same
also. Only because the 1st accused had mentioned the name of
BA 6628/08 -2-
petitioner, he has been falsely implicated. Petitioner is not liable
to answer for offences under sections 8(2) and 55((a) and (i) of
the Abkari Act, even if the allegations are accepted. Therefore,
the only offence is under section 120B IPC. In such circumstances,
bail may be granted, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner
has committed the offences as revealed from the statement given
by 1st accused. He sold excess quantity of liquor without billing
and hence this petition is opposed.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that bail can be granted to
petitioner, especially since no action is taken by the Beverages
Corporation against petitioner.
6. Hence, petitioner shall be released on bail on his
executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate,
on the following conditions:-
1) Petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday and
Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.
until further orders.
BA 6628/08 -3-
2) Petitioner shall not commit any offence
while on bail and in case breach of this
condition, bail is liable to be cancelled.
This petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.