IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4822 of 2007()
1. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. AMBATTU PARAMBIL RAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No. 4822 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007
ORDER
Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations
under the Kerala Abkari Act. 910 litres of spirit in 37 containers were
allegedly recovered from the terrace of a deserted house. The
petitioner is not the owner of the house. He is not the lessee or
licencee of the house. Allegation is made that the petitioner was
responsible for possession of the contraband liquor in the terrace of
that house. The crime was registered on 28.06.07. Seizure was
effected on that date and the F.I.R was registered. In the seizure
mahazar and the F.I.R, there is no unambiguous indication to suggest
that the petitioner was responsible for the commission of the crime.
The petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is involved in a couple of
cases under the Kerala Abkari Act. On receipt of discreet prior
information that the petitioner had stocked the articles in an
unoccupied house, the police party had gone to the scene of the crime
and effected the seizure. There was a maid who was put in charge of
the house. She had the keys of the house with her. She was unable
to explain how the contraband articles were found in the terrace of the
house. But she revealed that the petitioner was often seen in the
B.A.No. 4822 of 2007 2
premises. Despite her objection, the petitioner comes to the
compound of the house in question. There was some gruesome death
in that house and therefore that offered a convenient place of hiding
for whoever was responsible for keeping the articles there.
2. The owner of the house does not specifically connect the
petitioner. The housemaid only asserts that the petitioner was often
found there without valid explanation. The police had received
discreet prior information that the petitioner was keeping contraband
articles in that premises. In fact seizure mahasar shows that the
search of the entire house did not reveal the presence of any
contraband articles and it so happened that the necessity to inspect
the terrace was felt. The petitioner has criminal antecedents also.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these
indications are totally insufficient to attract culpability or even to justify
the continued detention of the petitioner. It is prayed that the
petitioner may now be enlarged on bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not
complete. In a serious crime like the instant one, investigator must be
given reasonable further time to complete the investigation. The
evidence collected so far may not be sufficient to come to a final
B.A.No. 4822 of 2007 3
conclusion of guilt against the petitioner. But very strong suspicion is
aroused and the needle of suspicion certainly and definitely is pointed
at the petitioner. This is not the occasion for courts to weigh the
materials collected in golden scales. Adequate opportunity must be
given to the investigator to work on the clues that are available and
conduct and a complete and proper investigation. The learned Public
Prosecutor points out that under Section 41 A of the Kerala Abkari
Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits
about the acceptability of the allegations and the quality of the data
collected. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor in
the wake of opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor, bail can be
granted to the petitioner only if the petitioner is in a position to instill
in the mind of the Court the twin satisfactions contemplated under
Section 41 A of the Kerala Abkari Act. Having rendered my very
anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, I am unable to
conclude that either of such satisfactions can be entertained at this
stage. I am satisfied that the investigator must be given reasonable
further time to complete the investigation.
6. This application for regular bail is, in these circumstances,
dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be at
B.A.No. 4822 of 2007 4
liberty to move the learned Sessions Judge or this Court for bail again
at a later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to
24.08.07. The investigator must in the meantime make every
endeavour to complete the investigation.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-