IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4459 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.259/10 OF PEERMADE POLICE STATION ............................................ PETITIONER (S):/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ARJUN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.SUNDARAM, KAVAKKULAM PUTHUVALIL THAMASOM, BONAMI KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE ADDITIONAL S.I OF POLICE, PEERMADE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.4459 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 55(i) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, police got secret information that sale of IMFL was conducted in the house of accused and police reached there on 11.7.2010, while petitioner and two others ran away from the house. Three bottles of rum (total quantity of 4.5 litres of Indian made foreign liquor) were seized. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer on knowing that Indian made foreign liquor was seized from his house. Petitioner is aged 67 years and it is highly improbable that he will ran away as alleged by the police. Petitioner had purchased the article from Beverages Corporation and it was kept in his house, but it was never intended for sale. There is absolutely nothing on record that petitioner was engaged in sale. Mere possession of B.A. No.4459/10 2 liquor above permissible quantity will not amount any offence u/s.55(a) of Abkari Act. The alleged offence will only fall under section 63 of the Abkari Act, which is bailable. It is only for the purpose of refusing bail that offence u/s.55(i) was included, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the case diary, the articles were kept in the house for the purpose of sale. Petitioner and two other persons were found running away, when police reached on getting information that sale was going on in petitioner's house. Petitioner is not involved in any other case. However, taking into consideration period of detention and quantity involved, this petition is not opposed. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the facts discussed above, I am satisfied that bail can be granted on conditions. Hence the following order is passed: 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 following conditions: B.A. No.4459/10 3 1) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 AM and 1 PM. 2) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. 3) In case petitioner is involved in other crime of similar nature, the bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.