IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6121 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.238/2008 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------- MANIKYAM, PERUTHIPPARA, DHARMAVALIKARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6121 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 1.300 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was seized from the shed attached to a building which belongs to the petitioner. The said article was stored for the purpose of sale and petitioner was also engaged in sale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence will be made out against the petitioner. There is absolutely no records or materials to establish that the place from where the article seized, belongs to the petitioner. In the absence of this, he cannot be made liable for possession of liquor. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, petitioner was in possession of only permissible quantity of Indian made foreign liquor, but, such possession will not constitute any offence. To establish that the article was stored for sale and that sale was being conducted, there must be evidence. But, no evidence is BA No.6121/08 2 available to show that petitioner was engaged in sale, except a vague statement. Hence, petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed this application and submitted that witnesses were questioned and from their statements, it is revealed that the place from where the article was seized belongs to the petitioner. There is no Panchayath number for the building or the shed from where the article was seized and therefore, no document will be available to prove this case. The investigation is being conducted into for getting documents relating to possession of property by the petitioner. It is also submitted that witnesses have stated that the petitioner used to sell Indian made foreign liquor from the property. Therefore, the article is stored for sale, which is an offence under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that there is only an allegation that petitioner was engaged in sale of liquor, but, admittedly, he was not present at the scene. The details of the person to whom liquor used to be sold, the date on which the article was sold and in what manner he was engaged in sale etc. BA No.6121/08 3 are not specifically stated, but, there is only a general statement that he used to sell liquor. The mere possession of Indian made foreign liquor is not an offence unless it is above the permissible quantity of 3.00 litres. But, the quantity involved is 1.300 litres. In the above circumstances, I find that petitioner has an arguable case and if, anticipatory bail is refused to the petitioner, he will be put to irreparable injury, since he is likely to be remanded. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that petitioner will not commit any offence. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl