In this bail application, the Kerala High Court held that an embargo exists under Section 41A of the Abkari Act preventing anticipatory bail in such cases. The applicant was directed to surrender within two weeks.
The applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and apply for regular bail subsequently.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5675 OF 2020
CRIME NO.83/2020 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
CHRIS SEBASTIAN, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF SEBASTIAN KC, KARIANKAL HOUSE, EDAYAR, P.O. KANNOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670650 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.JAYASURYA – SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5675 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2020
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.83
of 2020 of Excise Range Office, Koothuparamba, for having
allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections
8(1) & (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution case,
in brief, is this:
2.On 18.05.2020, the applicant was found carrying
a can and on seeing the Excise party, he abandoned the
can and fled away from there. On inspection, it was found
containing 3.5 litres of arrack. Crime was registered. The
applicant is apprehending arrest and hence, has
approached this Court for anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
B.A.No.5675 OF 2020
3
applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned
counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant is a very effluent farmer owning about 20 acres
of land and a big farm. It is stated that he has no reason to
carry contraband arrack in his can as alleged by the
prosecution. It is stated that he has engaged a lot of
outside State workers to work in his farm and there is the
possibility that any one of them would have carried the
said contraband arrack and since they were not available,
a false case has been foisted against the applicant.
4.In view of the embargo under Section 41A of the
Abkari Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Muraleedharan v. State of
Kerala [2001 KHC 411], the applicant cannot seek
anticipatory bail in an Abkari case. The applicant is
directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer
within two weeks and after interrogation, he shall be
B.A.No.5675 OF 2020
4
produced before the jurisdictional court at the earliest,
where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall
be preferably considered and disposed of on the very same
date, keeping in view the dictum of this Court in
Sukumari v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 22.
With these observations, the bail application is
dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
NR/03/12/20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Kerala Abkari Act given the embargo under Section 41A thereof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muraleedharan v. State of KeralaFollowed¶25
Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 411]
Sukumari v. State of KeralaReferred¶25
Sukumari v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 22
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chris Sebastian
State of Kerala
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court