IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2063 of 2009()
1. MADHU.P.K,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :21/04/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------
B.A. No.2063 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009
O R D E R
This regular bail application is preferred by the second
accused in Crime No.17/2009 of Thiruvalla Excise Range
where the offences involved are under Sections 55(a), 58 and
67B of Kerala Abkari Act.
2. The allegation is that on 31.03.2009, the first accused
transported 150 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in the
petitioner’s Petty Auto Rickshaw which was stopped by the
excise party attached to the Thiruvalla Excise range and the
foreign liquor in the iron trunk were Old Cask XXX Rum where
issued to BSF persons for their use.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
he was not aware of the contents of the iron trunks while
travelling to the house of the first accused and first accused is
working in BSF and the contraband article which alleged to
have seized are issued to BSF persons for their use. The
learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed this petition.
B.A.No.2063 of 2009 2
5. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor. The only contention raised in this petition is
that the petitioner is not aware of the contents of the trunk
which belonged to the first accused when the first accused
hired the Petty Auto Rickshaw for the purpose to go to the
house of the first accused. On the other hand, the prosecution
allegation is that it is in the Petty Auto Rickshaw of the
petitioner from where the contraband article was seized.
Whether the contraband article was transported with the
consent or not of the petitioner, is a question of fact to be
settled at the time of trial. Therefore, on the mere allegation
that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the trunk,
bail cannot be granted to the petitioner especially in view of
the conditions stipulated under Section 41A(b)(ii) of the Abkari
Act.
In the result, there is no merit in the petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN
JUDGE
pac