IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 213 of 2008()
1. SAJI, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SAJI SADANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ARUN RAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.213 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations
under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations against
the petitioner is that he was found in his house with a bottle of
liquor containing 200 ml of Rum and a glass. The petitioner has
antecedents of involvement in abkari offences. He is accused in
2 other crimes. Obviously drawing inference from his prior
conduct, the excise party wanted to apprehend him. He took to
his heels and could not be apprehended. Crime has been
registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even
if the entire allegations were accepted, there is nothing culpable
in the conduct of the petitioner. Merely because he has earlier
involvement in abkari offences, false and vexatious allegations
are being raised against him. The petitioner is entitled to
consume liquor at his residence and the possession of 200 ml of
Indian Made Foreign Liquor which is not even alleged to be
B.A.No.213 of 2008 2
spurious cannot amount to any offence. In fact, the counsel
submits that it is a perverse inference drawn solely because of the
prior instances of alleged culpability. The petitioner does not
deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. Solely
because he is involved in previous offences, he may not be left to
endure the trauma of arrest and detention. Anticipatory bail may
be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application. I have gone through the entire materials available in
this case. I am unable to perceive any specific features which can
suggest that the petitioner has committed the offence under
Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The mere fact that he is
involved in earlier offences does not justify the drawing of any
inference from his prior conduct. I am satisfied that the
petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. Appropriate
conditions can of course be imposed.
4. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The
following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned
Magistrate at 11 a.m on 23.01.2008. He shall be enlarged on
regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
B.A.No.213 of 2008 3
Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and
3 p.m on 24.01.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the
Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to
arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as
if those directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on
23.01.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released
from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to
appear before the learned Magistrate on 23.01.08.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
