IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2911 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 385/2010 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) .............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------ ANEESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SALIM, ANISH MANZIL, MANCODU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2911 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 24.04.2010 at 1 P.M., an autorickshaw was found parked by the side of the road and petitioner and two others were found engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. On seeing the police party, the petitioner ran away and two others were arrested on the spot. Two others who were standing near the auto rickshaw for purchase of liquor also escaped. Five bottles each containing 350 ml Indian Made Foreign Liquor seized from the auto rickshaw and the total quantity is 19.125 litres. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident did not occur as alleged. Second accused had purchased Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the Beverages Corporation, in connection with the marriage of his sister and he was proceeding in an auto rickshaw, while the petitioner was B.A. No. 2911 of 2010 2 given a lift in the auto rickshaw. On the way, the police intercepted the auto rickshaw and the articles were seized. It is not correct to say that any sale was conducted at the scene. The place of occurrence was just half a k.m. from the Beverages Corporation and it is highly unlikely that sale will be conducted within the short distance while liquor is available in the Beverages Corporation itself. 4. It is pointed out that prosecution has no case that any of the bottles was opened or any glass was found at the scene or seized by the police party. No money was also seized. No person was also found purchasing liquor. It is only said that two persons who came for the purpose of purchase of liquor ran away. Such persons were not questioned also. 5. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that Section 55(1) is included only with a view to deny bail to the petitioner. The article involved is only 19.125 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and even if entire allegations are accepted, the act committed would be possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in excess of the permissible quantity and the offence B.A. No. 2911 of 2010 3 attracted will be only under Section 63 of the Abkari Act, it is argued. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that absence of seizure of money is not a circumstance to release the petitioner on bail. As per the statement made by the first and second accused, money was collected by the petitioner, but he ran away and hence money could not be seized. It is also submitted that two persons are intended to purchase of liquor ran away from the spot. It is also submitted that the Beverages Corporation ordinarily situated in the town and place of occurrence is 2.k.ms away from the town. (Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that there is a specific allegation in the petition that Beverages Corporation is situated half k.m. away from the place of occurrence and this fact was brought to the notice of this court on the last posting, even now the learned Public Prosecutor is not able to state the exact distance of Beverages Corporation and place of occurrence). 7. On hearing both sides and consideration of the facts and circumstances discussed, I am satisfied that petitioner can be B.A. No. 2911 of 2010 4 granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. 8. Hence the following order is passed. 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2. Petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court on the following condition: i) Petitioner will co-operate with the investigation. ii) He shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln