IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6121 of 2008()
1. MANIKYAM, PERUTHIPPARA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :22/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6121 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari
Act. According to prosecution, 1.300 litres of Indian made
foreign liquor was seized from the shed attached to a building
which belongs to the petitioner. The said article was stored for
the purpose of sale and petitioner was also engaged in sale.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no
offence will be made out against the petitioner. There is
absolutely no records or materials to establish that the place
from where the article seized, belongs to the petitioner. In the
absence of this, he cannot be made liable for possession of
liquor. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, petitioner was
in possession of only permissible quantity of Indian made foreign
liquor, but, such possession will not constitute any offence. To
establish that the article was stored for sale and that sale was
being conducted, there must be evidence. But, no evidence is
BA No.6121/08 2
available to show that petitioner was engaged in sale, except a
vague statement. Hence, petitioner is entitled for anticipatory
bail, it is submitted.
4. Learned public prosecutor opposed this application
and submitted that witnesses were questioned and from their
statements, it is revealed that the place from where the article
was seized belongs to the petitioner. There is no Panchayath
number for the building or the shed from where the article was
seized and therefore, no document will be available to prove
this case. The investigation is being conducted into for getting
documents relating to possession of property by the petitioner.
It is also submitted that witnesses have stated that the petitioner
used to sell Indian made foreign liquor from the property.
Therefore, the article is stored for sale, which is an offence
under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that there is only an
allegation that petitioner was engaged in sale of liquor, but,
admittedly, he was not present at the scene. The details of the
person to whom liquor used to be sold, the date on which the
article was sold and in what manner he was engaged in sale etc.
BA No.6121/08 3
are not specifically stated, but, there is only a general statement
that he used to sell liquor. The mere possession of Indian made
foreign liquor is not an offence unless it is above the permissible
quantity of 3.00 litres. But, the quantity involved is 1.300 litres.
In the above circumstances, I find that petitioner has an
arguable case and if, anticipatory bail is refused to the
petitioner, he will be put to irreparable injury, since he is likely
to be remanded.
Hence, the following order is passed:
Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his
arrest on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that
petitioner will not commit any offence.
The petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl