IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6557 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.191/2008 OF MAMPUZHAKARI POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SUNILKUMAR @ SUNICHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, UTHUMTHARA HOUSE, MAMBUZHAKARIMURI, RAMANKARI VILLAGE, WARD NO: IV, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR POLICE, MAMPUZHAKARI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6557 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found selling liquor on 3.9.2008 and on seeing the police, petitioner ran away. 600 ml. of coloured liquor was abandoned by the petitioner and it was seized from the scooter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner purchased two bottles of brandy on 3.9.2008 from a nearby retail shop of Beverages Corporation. While, petitioner was proceeding with the article, respondent-officials approached the petitioner and on seeing them, he abandoned the articles and ran away. The article seized, if any, is only permissible quantity of Indian made foreign liquor. But, police, with ulterior motive, reported that it is coloured “liquor”. They have no case that it is “arrack”. The article, which was in possession of petitioner, was only Indian made foreign liquor of permissible quantity. 4. The respondent has not even stated the nature of liquor involved in this case. They only said that it is coloured BA No.6557/2008 2 “liquor”. If petitioner is refused anticipatory bail and later, on chemical examination or at the time of evidence, it is established that the article involved is Indian made foreign liquor, petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. It is also submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish alleged sale. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioner was found selling liquor. He was pouring the liquor and water to a person and on seeing the police, both of them ran away. The sale of liquor even if the article is Indian made foreign liquor, the offence will fall under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that this petition is a strong and arguable case, which can be established only at the time of evidence. In the light of the fact that respondent could not identify the nature of articles, which was allegedly seized from petitioner except that it was “liquor', it will be unjust if anticipatory bail is refused because, it is likely that he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. BA No.6557/2008 3 Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. until further orders. (ii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl