High Court Kerala High Court

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4332 of 2010()


1. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :21/07/2010

 O R D E R
                        K. HEMA, J.

              ---------------------------------------------------
                       B.A. No. 4332 of 2010
              ---------------------------------------------------
               Dated this 21st day of July, 2010.


                                  ORDER

Petition for bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a) and

56(b) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, first accused

mixed spirit with toddy and handed it over to 3rd accused,

who, in turn, gave it to 2nd accused. The 2nd accused sold the

adulterated toddy. Fourth accused is the licensee of the toddy

shop. From the toddy shop, 5 litres of spirit were seized from

the possession of first accused. 50 litres of adulterated toddy

was seized from petitioner’s possession. The incident happened

on 5.7.2010 at about 12.30 p.m.

3. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime. Learned

counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was laid up on

the date of offence, and he is innocent of the allegations made.

It is also submitted that the article is a colurless liquid and it

cannot be confirmed whether it is adulterated or mixed with

spirit, unless chemical analysis is done. Therefore, petitioner

may be granted bail, it is submitted. Petitioner is in custody

[B.A.No.4332/2010] 2

since 5.7.2010 onwards.

4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations against

petitioner that he was engaged in sale of adulterated toddy.

Petitioner was arrested from the spot and it is not correct to

say that he was laid up on that day. It is also submitted that

toddy was mixed with spirit and spirit were seized from the

toddy shop itself. The article which was being sold by second

accused is also mixed with spirit.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner

is involved in a serious offence. In the light of Section 41A of

Abkari Act, unless twin conditions in the said Section are

satisfied, bail cannot be granted. Petitioner was not able to

substantiate his asserted innocence.

This petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.