IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 820 of 2008() ---------------------------- CMP.1408/2008 of J.M.F.C. - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CR. NO.20/08 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AMBIKA SADANAM, PULIYOORVANCHI THEKKU, KALLELIBHAGAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 820 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was found to keep in his possession about 92 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor on 29/1/08. He was allegedly found moving with 3 bottles of IMFL. He was intercepted, arrested and interrogated. The interrogation led to the recovery of the remaining quantity of IMFL allegedly stored for sale in the residential premises of the petitioner. The petitioner continues in custody from 29/1/08. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on 30/1/08. Investigation is in progress. Altogether, about 92 litres of IMFL was thus seized from the possession of the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the petitioner has 14 other cases registered B.A. No. 820 OF 2008 -: 2 :- against him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even if the entire allegations were accepted, it is evident that the petitioner was only keeping the IMFL in his possession for the use in connection with the marriage of a relative of his. The wedding invitation has been produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the circumstance that there is no specific allegation in the contemporaneous documents that the bottles of IMFL do not contain any security stickers of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, places heavy reliance on the decision in Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 845) to contend that, at any rate, the allegation under Sec.55(i) or (a) of the Abkari Act is not attracted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. Asked to take up a specific instance on the theory of the petitioner that the marriage was to take place, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation does reveal that the petitioner's wife's uncle's son was to get married on 30/1/08. But the learned Public Prosecutor points out that the venue of the said marriage was about 200 Mtrs. away from the residence B.A. No. 820 OF 2008 -: 3 :- of the petitioner from where the recovery was effected. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though there is no specific allegation in the contemporaneous documents that the security stickers of the K.S.B.C. were not available on the liquor bottles, there is a statement that the number of the sticker is not clear. In any view of the matter, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no merit in the contention that large consignment was stored not for sale; but for use in connection with the marriage. The contemporaneous statements made by the petitioner to the detecting officers do not also tally with the present version advanced. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that considering the quantity of the articles seized as also the antecedents of the petitioner, the State is obliged to oppose the application for regular bail. 4. In the wake of opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor, bail can be granted to the petitioner only if this Court is in a position to entertain both the satisfactions contemplated in Sec.41A of the Kerala Abkari Act. I am unable to entertain either of those two satisfactions at this stage. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. But, I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to B.A. No. 820 OF 2008 -: 4 :- move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to 4/3/08. The Investigating Officer shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge