Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 1233 of 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 272/2019 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 2/2019 OF Njarakkel Excise Range Office , Ernakulam PETITIONER/ACCUSED: WILSON, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.GEORGE, PULIYEZHATHU HOUSE, VALAPPU.P.O, PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULAM-682508. BY ADVS. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI SMT.JESSY GEORGE SMT.M.K.LEELA SMT.P.K.JAYASREETHANKACHI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOCHI (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM). 2 INSPECTING OF EXCISE, NARAKKAL EXCISE RANGE, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM-682503. OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, apprehending arrest in Crime No.2 of 2019 of Excise Range Office, Njarakkal, seeks bail.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 01.02.2019 at 6.30a.m., on
getting a telephonic information regarding the sale of IMFL by a person on a dry day, excise party proceeded to the place of incident. They came across one person allegedly selling IMFL to another person. On seeing the excise party, both the persons ran away from the spot leaving behind the bottles of liquor, glass and few currency notes. Crime was registered and petitioner is arrayed as the accused.
3. According to the prosecution, petitioner was identified by an
excise guard, who knew the petitioner herein in advance. According to the prosecution, he was identified at the spot since he is stated to be involved in yet another abkari offence. It is seen recorded in the mahazar also.
4. Challenging this, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, it is highly unlikely that such an incident as alleged by the
prosecution had taken place. It was further contended that the confirmation of the identity of the accused is not proper and hence, custodial interrogation may not be essential.
5. It is pertinent to note that, it was pursuant to a prior information that, excise party had gone to the spot. Only one member among the excise party had identified the accused. It seems from the mahazar itself that, there are atleast two local persons arrayed as mahazar witnesses. They does not seem to have identified the accused.
6. Having considered these facts, I am inclined to permit the
petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from today. After interrogation and identification, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, which shall consider his bail application on the same day of production, having due regard to the observations made above.
Bail application is disposed of as above. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna