IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3120 of 2009 CRIME NO.127 OF 2009 OF PERINAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- ABHILASH, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KOTTAPATHADATHIL HOUSE, KOOTUPARA, MAADAMAN, PERINADU. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, PERINADU. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3120 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.127 of 2009 of Perinad Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on getting a telephonic information that arrack was being unloaded in the house of one Anil, the police party went to the place. They could not find anything in the house and property of Anil. On further search, they found about 1.5 litres of arrack in two plastic bottles in the property of one Kunjumon. The petitioner is implicated in the case on the basis of the statement of some of the neighbours that the petitioner is a person who is regularly involved in the sale of arrack in that locality. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal evidence so far collected to come to the conclusion that the B.A. NO. 3120 OF 2009 :: 2 :: petitioner has committed the offence. On a perusal of the case diary, it cannot be said that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is ill-founded. Except the statement of some of the witnesses who stated that the petitioner is regularly involved in the sale of arrack, there is no evidence as of now, prima facie, to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. Nobody has seen the petitioner placing arrack at the place from where it was seized; nor did the police find the petitioner dealing with arrack. 5. The observations made above are intended only for the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application and it shall not be treated as observations and findings on the merits of the case. In other words, these observations shall not be taken advantage of by any party at the time of trial. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 3120 OF 2009 :: 3 :: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/