High Court Kerala High Court

Durga Prasad Shetty K. vs The Excise Inspector on 21 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Durga Prasad Shetty K. vs The Excise Inspector on 21 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7795 of 2009()


1. DURGA PRASAD SHETTY K., AGED 27 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.MADHU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :21/01/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                    B.A. No. 7795 of 2009
               ------------------------------------
            Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010

                           O R D E R

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

13/01/2010, the following order was passed:

“This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

petitioner is the accused in Crime No.36 of 2009 of

Kumbla Excise Range, Kasaragod District. 2. The

offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 11.12.2009

at 6.10 PM, the petitioner was found in possession of

twenty bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, each

bottle containing 180 ml., and five litres of arrack. It

is alleged that the petitioner was carrying the

contraband articles and he abandoned the articles and

left the place on seeing the Excise party. Therefore,

the petitioner could not be arrested.

4. The petitioner alleges that the case was

foisted against him. He has sent a detailed

representation to the Honourable Minister of Excise

with copy to the Chief Minister of Kerala, Home

Minister and Excise Commissioner. Annexure I is the

petition. The petition is not dated. The learned

B.A. No. 7795/ 2009
2

counsel for the petitioner has produced the postal

receipts as Annexure 2 series. It is submitted that

Annexure 2 series relate to Annexure I representation.

5. In Annexure I representation, it is stated that

on 9.12.2009 at about 5.30 PM, while the petitioner

was driving a jeep, the jeep of the Excise party was

behind the jeep driven by the petitioner. The

petitioner could not give side to the jeep of the Excise

party because of the condition of the road at the

relevant place. The jeep of the Excise party overtook

the vehicle driven by the petitioner and the petitioner

was threatened with dire consequences for not having

given side to the jeep. In Annexure I, it is also stated

that on 10.12.2009 and on 11.12.2009, some

persons, stating that they are the Excise people, had

come to the house of the petitioner. At that time the

petitioner was not in the house. They threatened the

mother of the petitioner.

6. The prosecution case is that the crime was

detected by the Circle Inspector of Excise and after

seizure, it was forwarded to the Excise Inspector,

Kumbla.

            7.     Taking into    account   the    facts  and

      circumstances of the case,     I am of the view that

before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity

should be given to the petitioner to appear before the

B.A. No. 7795/ 2009
3

investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a

direction to the petitioner to appear before the

investigating officer at 9 AM on 16th and 17th January,

2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order

before the investigating officer.

8. Post on 21st January, 2010.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further

orders in connection with Crime No.36 of 2009 of

Kumbla Excise Range, Kasaragod District. ”

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the

petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order

dated 13/01/2010.

3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of

the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the

petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release

him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two

solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

B.A. No. 7795/ 2009
4

officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

A) The petitioner shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on alternate 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 to the extent indicated

above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm