High CourtsSingle Bench

Reghunadhan Nair vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 KL CK 0211

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Kerala Abkari Act, 1967 — Section 55(i)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8168 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

27 paragraphs · 541 words

Shircy V., J

1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.135 of 2021 of Sasthamkotta Excise Range, Kollam District registered for the offences

punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that on 18.08.2021 at about 08.00 a.m the Excise officials have seized 2 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the

tea shop run by the petitioner, which was kept by him for the purpose of sale, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

4.

Heard both sides.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations raised against him are absolutely false and baseless. In fact, the contraband

was seized from a car parked in front of his tea shop. He is running a petty tea shop and he has not kept any contraband as alleged by the

prosecution. Still he apprehends unnecessary arrest and hence this application.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the contraband was actually seized exactly from the front portion of the tea

shop run by him. The allegation that, it was seized from a car which was parked on the road side in front of his tea shop is absolutely false.

7.

The totally quantity of the contraband involved is only 2 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The prosecution has no case that he is having any

criminal antecedents. It is true that the mahazar prepared by the investigating agency would reveal that the contraband was seized from the tea shop

run by the petitioner and not from the car parked in front of the tea shop as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But it is to be noted

that the case was registered against this petitioner on 18.08.2021. So far the investigating agency has not taken any steps to arrest him. He has moved

the application for pre-arrest bail only on 28.10.2021. He is a person aged 49 years. As mentioned above he has no criminal antecedents.

8.

Taking into account of all these facts, I think it is just and proper to direct this petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer on 03.02.2022

between 10.30 am and 12 noon. Upon his surrender, after recording his arrest and interrogation, he shall be released on bail on the very same day

subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer.

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.