IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4242 of 2010()
1. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No.4242 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a) and 58 of
the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 29/06/2010, at
about 6:10 p.m, Excise Inspector and party seized toddy from a
shed attached to the house of petitioner. On investigation of the
premises, excise party found A1 to A3 dealing with toddy and
they were arrested from the spot. It was revealed that the toddy
was intended to be sold through the toddy shop run by petitioner.
Therefore, petitioner was arrayed as accused no. 4. A case was
registered stating that the toddy seized from the premises was
mixed with spirit.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that toddy
seized in this case is genuine. Samples were taken from the
toddy which was seized and those were sent for chemical analysis
The report will definitely show that the toddy is genuine, it is
submitted. According to petitioner, nothing was added to toddy
as alleged. Petitioner filed a writ petition as WP(C)
No.13921/2010 to keep in abeyance, all proceedings pursuant to
the crime registered in this case against petitioner, till receipt of
B.A. No.4242 of 2010 2
the chemical analysis report of the toddy seized. As per
Annexure F judgment, this court passed an order in the writ
petition thus: “petitioner shall not be visited with any adverse
consequences on the basis of registration of C.R.No.62/2010, till
report of the chemical analysis of the toddy seized is obtained.
The investigation, if any, in the matter can go on”.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though
petitioner produced copy of Annexure F judgment of this court
before the Magistrate Court and contended that remand of the
accused will amount to an adverse consequence and in the light
of Annexure F, a remand could not be made etc., learned
Magistrate remanded the accused to custody. It is submitted that
accused may be granted bail, since the chemical analysis report
is not yet received.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that chemical
analysis report is not yet received and in the light of Annexure F
order, he has no objection in granting bail till the chemical
analysis report is received and subject to the result of chemical
analysis report.
6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the light of
Annexure F judgment, and contentions raised by petitioner’s
counsel, the accused ought not to have been remanded, since
B.A. No.4242 of 2010 3
chemical analysis report was not received. In the light of
Annexure F order, petitioner ought to have been granted bail on
conditions. Hence, the following order is passed:
(1) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on
the following condition:
i) Petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday
between 10 A.M. and 1 P.M.
(2) This order will be in force only till the chemical
analysis report is received and subject to result of
the report and also subject to any order passed in
WP(C) No.13921/2010.
(3) The respondent will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail, in case the result of chemical
analysis is not favoufable to petitioner.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
vdv
B.A. No.4242 of 2010 4