IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3449 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1238/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I, PUNALUR CRIME 149/07 OF PATHANAPURAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- PRADEEP @ PRASENAN, AGED 29 S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PUTHEN VEEDU MAMPUZHATHARA, KAZHUTHERUTTI, THENMALA VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, PATHANAPURAM EXCISE RANGE, PATHANAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3449 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 8(1) and (2) and 55 (g) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 15.12.2007 at about 3 pm, while the first respondent and subordinates were on patrol duty, they got some information that the petitioner and the second accused were making arrack in a forest and they proceeded to the spot and seized 525 litres of arrack, wash and implements for distilling liquor. On investigation, petitioner and second accused are stated to be involved in the offence. 3. It is submitted that petitioner was actually arrested on 9.3.2008 in connection with Crime No.171 of 2007 and the arrest in this case was recorded formally on 18.3.2008. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 9.3.2008 onwards for the past 82 days in both the cases together. In this case he is in custody for 72 days. The statutory period of detention is over. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a headload worker and he is innocent of the allegations made. He BA.3449/08 2 belonged to INTUC union originally and subsequently he joined BMS union and he is the Secretary of the said union. Because of this, INTUC workers had enmity towards him and he was falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner has a family to look after and his custody is not required for investigation, since the recovery is effected already. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is an accused in another crime. Both the cases were occurred in 2007. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that there is every chance to repeat the offence and hence this petition is opposed. But the fact that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and that he was not even found at the spot, are admitted. It is also admitted that it is only on investigation as revealed from the statement of witnesses, that the involvement of the petitioner was implicated. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that the petitioner can be granted bail by imposing conditions to see that the offence is not repeated. Hence, the petitioner is granted bail on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. BA.3449/08 3 ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 AM and 1 PM until further orders. iii) Petitioner shall not leave the limits of Pathanapuram Excise Range, except with the permission of the committal court. iv) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence of similar nature and if there is any breach of this condition, the bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.