Loading...

Biju vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Biju vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1892 of 2010()


1. BIJU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

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

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :31/03/2010

 O R D E R
                          K.T.SANKARAN, J.
             ------------------------------------------------------
                       B.A. NO. 1892 OF 2010
             ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010


                                O R D E R

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

Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.R.No.12 of

2010 of Thirupuram Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Sections

56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 20.3.2010, the Excise

Commissioner inspected the toddy shop, namely, T.S.No.3 of

Thirupuram Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram Division. It was

found that in the toddy shop, large quantity of toddy was kept. Apart

from toddy, large quantity of sugar, 8 kgs. of yeast and 120 grams of

soap powder were also found in the toddy shop. According to the

prosecution, these materials are used for adulteration of toddy and

mixing the same with toddy and water for the purpose of

adulteration. Samples of toddy were sent for chemical analysis. The

B.A. NO. 1892 OF 2010

:: 2 ::

analysis report is not received so far. The petitioner is the Manager

of the toddy shop. He was not available in the toddy shop at the

time when the Excise Commissioner came to the shop. He was

called to the shop and the toddy shop was opened.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 20.3.2010 itself and he was

remanded to judicial custody.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure C

order dated 13.6.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.2096 of 2008 and Annexure D

order dated 1.6.2009 in Crl.M.C.Nos.1008 and 1009 of 2009 to

support the contention that without getting the chemical analysis

report, even registration of the crime and initiation of any proceeding

against any person would be premature.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not only

a case of adulterating toddy with other substances found in the toddy

shop, but a case where sugar, yeast, soap powder and other

materials found in the toddy shop were used for manufacturing

spurious toddy. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

B.A. NO. 1892 OF 2010

:: 3 ::

Annexures C and D orders are therefore, not applicable to the case

on hand.

7. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that if it is the case of prosecution that something was added to the

toddy, Annexures C and D orders would be applicable to the case.

On the other hand, if it is the case of the prosecution that with the

materials other than toddy found in the toddy shop the accused were

making preparations for manufacturing something, that is not

covered by Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. It is not necessary in this

Bail Application to decide these disputed questions. I am inclined to

rely on Annexures C and D orders, taking into account the facts and

circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, I am of the view

that continued detention of the petitioner would be improper. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that bail can be

granted to the petitioner.

8. 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,

Neyyattinkara, subject to the following conditions:

B.A. NO. 1892 OF 2010

:: 4 ::

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

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 the receipt of the chemical analysis

report, the investigating officer would be entitled to take appropriate

steps in the case including the steps for re-arrest of the petitioner.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information