IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6008 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.45/2011 OF EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD PETITIONER: ------------------------------ A.GOPIKRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER, S.D.7 DISTILLERY, GOPI NIVAS, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.A.P.LALY @ LALY VINCENT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. EXCISE INPSECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6008 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.45 of 2011 of Palakkad Excise Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 58 and 12(C) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following : On 26.6.2011, on getting information that illicit foreign liquor is being manufactured and stored in two buildings situated at Chandranagar, Palakkad, belonging to SDF Distillery, the Excise party searched the place. They found 625 litres of illicit foreign liquor. Various materials like colour essence, fake labels, bottling machines, packing machines, packing cases, measuring jars and alcohol meter were also found in the buildings. Accused Nos.1 and 2, a driver and a security guard BA 6008/2011 2 were arrested on the spot. Investigation revealed that the petitioner (Accused No.3), who is the General Manager of SDF Distillery, is involved in the offence and he is the master brain of the manufacture of illicit foreign liquor. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore, he has moved this application for anticipatory bail. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is the General Manager of SDF Distillery at Pampady, Thiruvillwamala. It is stated that SDF Distillery is a reputed distillery and at no point of time earlier, any offence was alleged against SDF Distillery and its personnel. It is true that SDF Distillery has a regional office and a guest house at Palakkad. It is stated that the petitioner was on business tour and he was never involved in the offence. If at all accused Nos.1 and 2 were found to have stored illicit liquor in the premises, that is not a ground to implicate the petitioner in the case, only on the ground that the rent deed of the building is in the name of the petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation BA 6008/2011 3 revealed enough materials to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is the main person involved in the manufacture of illicit foreign liquor and the storage of the same in the premises in question. He knows the technical knowhow of the manufacture of illicit foreign liquor. It is submitted that it cannot be believed that a driver and a security guard in the regional office of a distillery could manufacture large quantity of illicit foreign liquor, and that too at a place like the regional office and Guest House of the Distillery. Without the junction of accused No.3, manufacture of illicit foreign liquor could not be made, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. Thorough investigation is required into the allegations and the offence. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. The discretionary relief under Section 438 of Crl.P.C. cannot be granted in a case like this where serious allegations are made. The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor BA 6008/2011 4 that the Excise people could not find the source of illicit foreign liquor in Palakkad area for a considerable period of time and nobody could anticipate that the premises of a reputed distillery would be misused for manufacture of illicit foreign liquor, is to be taken note of in this context. On a consideration of all the relevant facts, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl