Kerala High Court
Sathyaraj vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7968 OF 2020
CRIME NO.28/2020 OF Moolamattom Excise Range, Idukki.
PETITIONER/S:
SATHYARAJ
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF RAJENDRAN, KAALAKOOTUMKAL VEETIL
PERINGASSERY, MOOLAKKADU, UDUMBANNOOR KARA
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT -685595
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU TOM
SRI.K.R.JITHIN
SHRI.BALAMURALI K.P.
SHRI.SHAJI T.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7968 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 30th day of November 2020 Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.28/2020 of Moolamattom Excise Range Office, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 8(1) & (2) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:- On 16.08.2020 the Excise Officials recovered 70 litres of arrack and 400 litres of wash from the house in Udumbannoor Panchayath belonging to the applicant. The applicant was not present there. He was implicated as an accused and proceed against him. Apprehending arrest, he has approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing B.A. No.6235/2020 and vide order dated 13.10.2020, anticipatory bail application was rejected directing the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer and apply for regular bail before the jurisdictional court. Accordingly, the applicant surrendered on 27.10.2020 and he applied for bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the same Bail Appl..No.7968 OF 2020 3 was rejected and thereafter he also approached the Sessions Court for bail that too was rejected.
3. The applicant prays that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and therefore he may be granted bail since the recovery is already complete and he has no criminal antecedents also.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public prosecutor.
5. The applicant was alleged to be in possession of 70 litres of arrack and 400 litres of wash, which indicates the scale in which the applicant was involved in distilling of arrack. It may be true that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. But the fact that he has been involved in such a huge quantity of distillation shows that he is likely to commit offence, in case he is released on bail at this stage. The investigating officer will definitely have to be granted more time to investigate regarding the involvement of the applicant and the persons he is connected with for vending of the liquor, which he distills. Hence it is too early to grant bail to the applicant. The applicant states that he is not well. He has produced a document as Annexure A3, indicating towards his physical illness. The illness which is Bail Appl..No.7968 OF 2020 4 pointed out is a congenital disease for which he has been treated since childhood. The criminal proclivity of the applicant to get involved in such a huge scale of distillation of arrack indicates that his illness is not an impediment for his distillation of arrack. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. In case he requires medical treatment he is to approach the jurisdictional court for appropriate treatment.
Hence the application for bail is dismissed.
SD/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE rmm