High Court Kerala High Court

Subramanian @ Subran vs The State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Subramanian @ Subran vs The State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3815 of 2008()


1. SUBRAMANIAN @ SUBRAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJESH, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :23/06/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.

                 -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.3815 of 2008
                 -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008

                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. According to prosecution, petitioners were engaged in

supplying arrack in the toddy shop. On seeing the police party, the

petitioners and another accused ran away. One of the accused was

arrested from the spot. The petitioners could not be arrested. A

crime was registered against them under Section 8(1) and (2) of the

Abkari Act.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the first

petitioner is arrayed as accused as a salesman of the shop, but he

has nothing to do with the shop. If the first petitioner is working as

salesman, it is submitted, there will be documentary evidence to

establish the same. But the first petitioner is falsely implicated as a

salesman without any basis.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that as per the First Information Statement, the first

petitioner is shown as an employee and two others as helpers

working in the shop. It is submitted that it is not necessary that all

BA.3815/08 2

the persons who are working in the toddy shop will be noted in the

roll and records be maintained to show that they are the employees.

First petitioner’s name was mentioned in the First Information

Statement itself and he was identified at the spot itself.

5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioners are not

able to substantiate their innocence, except by saying that there are

no records to confirm that the petitioners are employees in the

toddy shop. The matter is under investigation and it is not proper to

interfere at this stage.

This petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.