IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2808 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.2301/2010 Dated 20/04/2010 .................... (CRIME NO.12/2010 OF EXCISE RANGE HORSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------- T.V.PAVITHRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O RAGAVAN, ADOT HOUSE, P.O.AJANUR, ANANDASRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MURUGAN P.V. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J -------------------- Bail Application No.2808 Of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 56(b) of Abkari Act r/w: rule 8(3) and 9(2) of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002. According to prosecution, a sample of toddy was taken from the toddy shop conducted by the second accused. Petitioner was sales man at the time of sampling. On analysis of the toddy it was reported that it contained 9.96 % of Ethyl Alcohol as against the permissible percentage of 8.1 %. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Second accused who is the licensee is already granted anticipatory bail by this court as per order dated 16.04.2010 in Bail Application No. 2172/2010. It is also submitted that in the light of the decision reported in Unni vs. State of Kerala (2003(3) KLT 306), the offence alleged will not lie against the petitioner, since Ethyl Alcohol is naturally liberated in toddy. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the decision cited by the petitioner's counsel may not hold the field now, in the light of the new Rule which has come into existence. As per Rule, 8.1% is the percentage of permissible quantity of Ethyl Alcohol in Bail Application No.2808 Of 2010 2 toddy. The new Rule is introduced in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the only non bailable offence in this case is under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The person who is liable under Section 57(a) is only the licensee and manufacturer. But, petitioner is only the sales man. I also take note of the fact that the licensee is already granted anticipatory bail by this court. Hence there is no ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on condition that he will report before the Investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. Petition is allowed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv