Tomy Augustine, vs State of Kerala, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1662702
CourtKerala Orders High Court
Decided OnAug-31-2021
Case NumberBail Appl./6169/2021
JudgeHonourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.
AppellantTomy Augustine,
RespondentState of Kerala,
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mrs. justice shircy v. tuesday, the 31st day of august 2021 / 9th bhadra, 1943 c.r.no.53/2020 of thankamany excise range, idukki petitioner/accused :- tomy augustine, aged 50 years s/o. augustine, cherunilath puthanpurackal house, mangappara kara, konnathadi p.o, idukki 685 563. by adv v.sri nath respondents :- 1 state of kerala, rep. by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, kochi 31. 2 the excise inspector, thankamany excise range, idukki. sri.manu.pg- sr.p.p this bail application having come up for admission on 31.08.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe petitioner who is the sole accused inc.r. no.53 of 2020 of thankamany excise range, idukki district registered for the offences punishable under sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the kerala abkari act, has moved this applicationapprehending arrest.2. the prosecution allegation is that on 16.06.2020 at about 2.00 pm the excise inspector and his team on getting reliable information that illicit liquor has been stored in the residential house of the petitioner, conducted a search in thehouse and seized 5 litres of illicit arrack kept in the hall of the said building in contravention of the provisions of the abkari act. thus the crime was registered against him. the petitioner could not be apprehended then and there as he fled away from the place of occurrence.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned public prosecutor.4. according to the learned counsel for thepetitioner he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. but he has been falsely implicated in the case for no reason and hence this application.5. the learned public prosecutor vehemently opposed the application.6. on going through the records, i could find a strong prima facie case against this petitioner. of course, the contraband involved in the case is only 5 litres but it is illicit arrack and it was detected from the residential house owned by this petitioner. having regard to the nature of accusationlevelled against the petitioner as well other factsand circumstances involved in this case, i do not think that this is a fit and appropriate case in which the discretion of the court can be exercised as prayed for. only in exceptional cases the power under section 438 cr.p.c can be granted. this is not a case coming under the said category. hence, he is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail as prayed for by the petitioner.accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. the petitioner could very well surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the case. sd/- shircy v. judge sma
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 9TH BHADRA, 1943 C.R.NO.53/2020 OF THANKAMANY EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI PETITIONER/ACCUSED :- TOMY AUGUSTINE, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTINE, CHERUNILATH PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, MANGAPPARA KARA, KONNATHADI P.O, IDUKKI 685 563. BY ADV V.SRI NATH RESPONDENTS :- 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 31. 2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, THANKAMANY EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI. SRI.MANU.PG- SR.P.P THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner who is the sole accused in

C.R.    No.53     of    2020   of    Thankamany         Excise       Range,
Idukki      District         registered       for       the      offences
punishable        under   Sections        8(1)    and     8(2)    of    the
Kerala      Abkari     Act,    has       moved     this    application

apprehending arrest.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 16.06.2020 at about 2.00 pm the Excise Inspector and his team on getting reliable information that illicit liquor has been stored in the residential house of the petitioner, conducted a search in the

house and seized 5 litres of illicit arrack kept in the hall of the said building in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus the crime was registered against him. The petitioner could not be apprehended then and there as he fled away from the place of occurrence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. But he has been falsely implicated in the case for no reason and hence this application.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application.

6. On going through the records, I could find a strong prima facie case against this petitioner. Of course, the contraband involved in the case is only 5 litres but it is illicit arrack and it was detected from the residential house owned by this petitioner. Having regard to the nature of accusation

levelled against the petitioner as well other facts

and circumstances involved in this case, I do not think that this is a fit and appropriate case in which the discretion of the court can be exercised as prayed for. Only in exceptional cases the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be granted. This is not a case coming under the said category. Hence, he is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail as prayed for by the petitioner.

Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. The petitioner could very well surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the case. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE SMA