Ayyoob vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17705 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
      FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 5990 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 570/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT&
                   SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
            CRIME NO.77/2021 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, TIRUR


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 :-

            AYYOOB,
            AGED 41 YEARS
            S/O.ABU, VAILATHOOR KATTIL HOUSE,
            MOOSA HAJIPPADI DESOM, CHERIYAMUNDAM VILLAGE,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            P.T.SHEEJISH
            P.K.PURUSH
            HARIKIRAN
            P.SREELAKSHMI
            A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917)
            JASHITHA VIJAYAN
            AKHILA SRIDHARAN
            STEPHY GRACE RAJ



RESPONDENT/STATE :-

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.



            NOUSHAD.K.A- SR.P.P




     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 5990 OF 2021
                                       2

                                  ORDER

The petitioner who is the second accused in

Crime No.77 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Tirur,

Malappuram District registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 55(i) of

the Abkari Act, has moved this application

apprehending arrest.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on

07.07.2021 at about 7.00 pm the Excise Inspector and

his team on getting reliable information conducted a

search in the house bearing No.IV/53 of Cheriyamundam

Grama Pnachayat and seized 4.5 litres of arrack and

30 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the

house, owned by this petitioner. Thereby, he along

with the first accused were booked for the said

offence.

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 absolutely no connection with the BAIL APPL. NO. 5990 OF 2021

contraband alleged to have been seized by the Excise

officials. Actually, the same was seized from a

property situated near to his residence, but no

search was conducted as alleged by the prosecution

and nothing was seized from his residence. Still he

apprehends unnecessary arrest in the false case

registered and hence this application.

5. It is submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor that the investigation of the case is only

in progress. The first accused is the son of this

petitioner and he was arrested from the spot.

Thereafter, after few days in custody he was released

on bail.

6. The contraband was seized from the

residential house of this petitioner and it is

revealed that he along with his son had stored the

same for distillation.

On going through the records, I could find a

strong prima facie case against this petitioner.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations

levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that BAIL APPL. NO. 5990 OF 2021

this is a fit and appropriate case in which the

discretion of the court can be exercised as prayed

for. 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