IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6628 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 300/2008 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MOHAN KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNAN VIHAR, KARAVALLOOR P.O. PUNALLOOR (SHOP-IN-CHARGE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, ANAKKARA). BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6628 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 8 (2), 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act read with section 120B IPC. According to prosecution, huge quantities of brandy, rum, beer, coloured arrack and Rs.1,03,000/- were seized from a room attached to a hotel. First accused was arrested from the room. On questioning, it was revealed that petitioner who is in charge of Bevarages Corporation retail shop supplied the liquor to him without proper bills. Hence, crime was registered and petitioner was implicated as 2nd accused. The incident occurred on 3-10-2008 and petitioner was arrested on the same day. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working in the Beverages Corporation for the past 15 years and there is absolutely no allegation against him. He has no criminal antecedents. It is not possible to sell huge quantity of liquor without proper bills. If at all any incident has happened, the Beverages Corporation will definitely take action against petitioner. But, no such action has been taken so far. Every day the billing is done and the management is satisfied by the same also. Only because the 1st accused had mentioned the name of BA 6628/08 -2- petitioner, he has been falsely implicated. Petitioner is not liable to answer for offences under sections 8(2) and 55((a) and (i) of the Abkari Act, even if the allegations are accepted. Therefore, the only offence is under section 120B IPC. In such circumstances, bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner has committed the offences as revealed from the statement given by 1st accused. He sold excess quantity of liquor without billing and hence this petition is opposed. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that bail can be granted to petitioner, especially since no action is taken by the Beverages Corporation against petitioner. 6. Hence, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- 1) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. BA 6628/08 -3- 2) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and in case breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.