Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9194 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 27/2012 OF CHERPU EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , TRISSUR DISTRICT ...... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- P.VENUGOPAL, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN NAIR,PADINJAROOT HOUSE,P.O.KODANNOR, CHAKYARKADAVU DESAM,KODANNOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN”
563. BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR,CHERPU EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ”
031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.9194 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013 ORDER
The petitioner is an accused in CR No.27/2012 of Cherpu Excise Range, Thrissur District, who is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act.
2. The allegation against him is that on the date of incident, on getting reliable information, the Excise Officers went to the building in question and seized 100 litres of wash found in the roof of the 2nd floor of a building, which is now under construction.
3. The petitioner would say that that the building from which the wash is alleged to have been seized does not belong to him and he is neither the owner of the building nor in the possession of the same. The petitioner has produced Annexures A2 to A4 in support of his claim.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting B.A. No.9194 of 2012 -2- instructions pointed out that there are two buildings in the property; one is a single storied building and the other is a three storied building. The three storied building does not stand in the name of the petitioner and contraband was seized from there. However it is pointed out that the investigation is only progressing. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, prima-facie it is found that there is some substance in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At any rate, prima-facie it would appear that the building, from which, the contraband was seized does not belong to the petitioner. Considering these aspects, this petition is allowed as follows: i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.02.2013, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM concerned and on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of B.A. No.9194 of 2012 -3- Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court. ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9 am and 10 am till final report is laid. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE shg/