High Court Kerala High Court

Abhilash (Abhish) vs Excise Inspector on 19 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Abhilash (Abhish) vs Excise Inspector on 19 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5684 of 2008()


1. ABHILASH (ABHISH), S/O.SOMAN, AGED 25
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, UDUMBANCHOLA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SABU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :19/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.
                 -------------------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.5684 of 2008
                 -------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008



                                 O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari

Act. According to prosecution, petitioner and the fourth accused

are running a hotel by name Sreekrishna and on inspection of

the hotel, 37 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor containing a

total quantity of 30 litres were seized. The first and the second

accused who were present at the hotel were arrested from the

spot. On the confession made by them, petitioner and the fourth

accused were also brought into the array of accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

fourth accused is the owner of the building and petitioner is his

nephew. As per Annexure AI agreement, hotel is run by the

second accused and it is the second accused who deliberately

implicated the petitioner, who has nothing to do with the

building, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that even as per

the allegations, petitioner was not present anywhere near the

BA No.5684/08 2

spot at the time of offence.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

conceded that according to prosecution, the petitioner was not

present at the spot and that no licence was issued to anybody to

conduct hotel. Petitioner was implicated only by the confession

made by the first and the second accused. There is no licence for

running a hotel to anybody.

5. On hearing both sides, I find that except the

confession made by the first and the second accused, there is

nothing to connect petitioner with the crime. The property

belongs to fourth accused and Annexure AI prima facie shows

that the hotel is run by the second accused and he was arrested

from spot. In the above circumstances, I find that anticipatory

bail can be granted to the petitioner.

Hence, the following order is passed:

(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating

Officer within seven days from today and he shall

subject himself to interrogation.

(2) Thereafter, he shall be released on bail in the event of

his arrest on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with

BA No.5684/08 3

two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following

conditions:

(i) He shall report before the Investigating

Officer as and when directed.

(ii) He shall co-operate with the investigation

as and when directed.

(iii) He shall not commit any offence while on

bail.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl