IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5684 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.26/08 OF UDUMBANCHOLA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- ABHILASH (ABHISH), S/O.SOMAN, AGED 25 YEARS, THENGINKUDY HOUSE, MULLAKKANAM KARA, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ EXCISE INSPECTOR, UDUMBANCHOLA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5684 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 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 and the fourth accused are running a hotel by name Sreekrishna and on inspection of the hotel, 37 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor containing a total quantity of 30 litres were seized. The first and the second accused who were present at the hotel were arrested from the spot. On the confession made by them, petitioner and the fourth accused were also brought into the array of accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fourth accused is the owner of the building and petitioner is his nephew. As per Annexure AI agreement, hotel is run by the second accused and it is the second accused who deliberately implicated the petitioner, who has nothing to do with the building, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that even as per the allegations, petitioner was not present anywhere near the BA No.5684/08 2 spot at the time of offence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor conceded that according to prosecution, the petitioner was not present at the spot and that no licence was issued to anybody to conduct hotel. Petitioner was implicated only by the confession made by the first and the second accused. There is no licence for running a hotel to anybody. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that except the confession made by the first and the second accused, there is nothing to connect petitioner with the crime. The property belongs to fourth accused and Annexure AI prima facie shows that the hotel is run by the second accused and he was arrested from spot. In the above circumstances, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and he shall subject himself to interrogation. (2) Thereafter, he shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with BA No.5684/08 3 two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) He shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (ii) He shall co-operate with the investigation as and when directed. (iii) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl