High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 KL CK 0001

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Kerala Abkari Act, 1967 — Section 8(1), 8(2), 55(g)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9041 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 449 words
1.

The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.13 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

under Sections 8(1) & (2) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

2.

On 17.01.2021, at about 6.50 PM, while the Excise Inspector and his party were on patrol duty, at Chackamukku Kottapuram Road near

Poonkunnam, they spotted the applicant, riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08-AZ-3479, from inside a house. He was intercepted and 5 litres

of illicit arrack was seized from his possession and after questioning him and taking him back to the house from where he had come out, it was

revealed that he was in possession of 195 litres of arrack inside the house and the 2nd accused was allegedly involved in distillation of the arrack.

Articles meant for distillation of arrack were also seized from there and both the accused were arrested. The applicant states that he is innocent and

the allegations are not true and that the seizure of the arrack from the house is a totally separate incident and that he is not responsible for that. And,

therefore, he may be released on bail. He was arrested on 17.01.2021 and continues in custody.

3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant

had taken that house on lease and it is from inside that house that 195 litres of arrack was seized on inspection. The second accused was also involved

in distillation of arrack, jointly with the applicant. It is admitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has been in custody for more than a

month. Considering all these facts and circumstances and on hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, I find that in view of the fact that the

applicant has no criminal antecedents, further incarceration of the applicant may not be required.

4.

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One

lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

The bail application is allowed.