High Court Kerala High Court

Rajeev vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rajeev vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 18 of 2010()


1. RAJEEV, AGED 28 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :08/01/2010

 O R D E R
                          K.T.SANKARAN, J.
             ------------------------------------------------------
                       B.A. NO. 18 OF 2010
             ------------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010


                                O R D E R

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in C.R.

No.150 of 2009 of Nooranadu Excise Range, Alappuzha District.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other

accused are under Sections 55(a), 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 25.12.2009, the Excise

Officials inspected Toddy Shop No.14 of Nooranadu Excise Range.

They found the first accused mixing some liquid with toddy. Samples

of toddy were taken and the officials seized 385 litres of toddy kept in

the toddy shop. The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2009 and he

was remanded to judicial custody.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

registration of the crime and arrest of the petitioner before getting a

B.A. NO. 18 OF 2010

:: 2 ::

report from the Chemical Examiner was premature. He relied on

Rule 8(3) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal) Rules, 2002. The counsel

points out that if ultimately it is found that the sample of toddy is free

from any noxious substance, there would be no justification for the

detention of the petitioner in judicial custody. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that if, on getting the report, it is found that

the toddy was adulterated, still the investigating officer can seek for

appropriate remedies for re-arrest of the petitioner.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the fact that the report of the Chemical Examiner is not

received, I am of the view that the petitioner is to be released on bail.

6. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing

bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to

the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – II,

Mavelikkara, subject to the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer
between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the
final report is filed or until further orders;

B.A. NO. 18 OF 2010

:: 3 ::

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;

c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed as above.

It is made clear that after receipt of the report of the Chemical

Examiner, the investigating officer would be free to seek for

appropriate reliefs, in the manner indicated above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/