High Court Kerala High Court

Abdul Muthalib vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Abdul Muthalib vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5480 of 2008()


1. ABDUL MUTHALIB,S/O A.P.ABDULLA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MUHAMMED SHERIF, S/O YUSUF,
3. ABDUL SALEEM,S/O HAMEED,

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUMBALA.

3. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :23/09/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K. HEMA, J.

                   -------------------------------------------------
                      Bail Appl.No. 5480 of 2008
                   --------------------------------------------------

            Dated this the 23rd           day of September, 2008.


                                      ORDER

Petition for bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari

Act. According to prosecution, on 19.8.2008 at about 6.15 p.m. a car

was found parked near bus stand and, 2500 packets of Karnataka

made arrack, each containing 100 ml., were seized from the car.

There were three persons inside the car. They ran away, on seeing the

police, but they were arrested from the spot itself. Petitioners are the

said three persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners

are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioners were

arrested not under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution and

they have nothing to do with the arrack seized from the car. The car

did not belong to the petitioners, but, the owner of the car has not

been made an accused in this case. Petitioners are falsely implicated

by the Circle Inspector. The mothers of first and second petitioner

filed a complaint before the Director General of Police, Trivandrum

complaining about the false implication and an enquiry is being

conducted into this by the D.Y.S.P.

4. According to petitioners, the car of the first petitioner (A1)

collided with the car from which the articles were seized. There was a

dispute in this respect and the mater was settled and Rs.50,000/- was

agreed to be paid to the first petitioner. The first petitioner had gone

[B.A.No.5480/08] 2

to collect the amount from the driver of the car and he collected

Rs.50,000/- from him. The first accused was returning after collecting

the amount, while the police came and arrested him and implicated

him and that articles were seized from the car. The second and third

petitioners were arrested while they were playing cricket and

regarding such arrest, Annexure-I complaint has been filed before

the Director General of Police the mothers of the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submitted that petitioners are working

abroad and they were waiting to return to Gulf countries and they have

valid passport and visa. These in short, are the contentions of the

petitioners.

5. This petition is opposed. Considering the gravity of the

offence and the quantity of the article involved, it is submitted that it is

not a fit case to grant bail. According to prosecution, petitioners were

found inside the car and they were caught from the place of

occurrence itself and the allegations to the contrary are denied.

6. On hearing both sides, in the light of the counter allegations

made regarding false implication, I have gone through the documents

produced and also the allegations made in the petition. It appears that

the petitioners themselves have no consistent case regarding the

circumstances under which they were arrested. As per the compliant

Annexure-I, first and second accused were playing cricket along with

3rd accused on 19.8.2008 at about 2 p.m., while police took them into

custody. But, as per the allegations in the petition, first accused was

arrested while he was returning after collecting Rs.50,000/- from the

drive of the car. It is relevant to note that Annexure-I was given by

none other than the mothers of first and second accused, that too,

after four days of the incident on 23.8.2008 but they had no case in

Annexure-1 that the first accused was arrested while he was returning

after collecting money.

[B.A.No.5480/08] 3

In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied at this stage that

the petitioners are not guilty and hence, in view of Section of 41A of

Abkari Act, bail cannot be granted.

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K. HEMA, JDUGE.

Krs.