Balagopal @ Ammananpillai vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5460 of 2007()


1. BALAGOPAL @ AMMANANPILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/09/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.
                            ----------------------
                         B.A.No.5460 of 2007
                      ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 11th day of September 2007

                                 O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be

in possession of six bottles of illicit liquor each containing 2.25 litres.

Seeing the police party, he allegedly abandoned the article and took

to his heels. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in

progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely

innocent. He had purchased the liquor from the outlet of the

Beverages Corporation. In these circumstances, he has not

committed any offences punishable under Section 55 of the Kerala

Abkari Act. At worst he can be held punishable for possessing licit

liquor in excess of the prescribed quantity which can be held to be

punishable under Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act. In these

circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail , it is

prayed.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

Absolutely no material has been produced to cover the entire quantity

of liquor seized from the petitioner. Even Annexure A bills which are

sought to be produced now do not cover the entire quantity of the

contraband article seized from the possession of the petitioner. The

seizure mahazer does not show that security stickers of the Beverages

B.A.No.5460/07 2

Corporation were available on the liquor seized. The conduct of the

petitioner of not explaining to the police that he has documents to

show the licit possession is also in these circumstances relevant,

submits the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor

in these circumstances submits that the decision in Sabu v. State of

Kerala (2003(2) KLT 173)] cannot be of help to the petitioner in this

context.

3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public

Prosecutor. There is nothing to show that the quantity seized from

the possession of the petitioner was licit liquor purchased from the

Beverages Corporation. Annexure A document does not cover the

entire quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the petitioner,

at any rate. I am not, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not

necessary to issue any direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of

the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to appear before the

investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and

then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.

4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if

the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the

learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior

notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate

must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

B.A.No.5460/07 3

B.A.No.5460/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007