Madhu. K vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20286 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
    THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 7108 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1990/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
  SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KASARAGOD, KASARGOD
            CRIME NO.167 OF 2021 OF HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE


PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

            MADHU. K
            AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O KOTTAN, PADIYIL HOUSE,
            PARAKKALAYI, BELUR VILLAGE,
            VELLARIKUND TALUK,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671534.

            BY ADVS.
            MUHAMMED YASIL
            ROSIN JOSEPH
            SMT.MEGHA S PRATAP



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

    2       EXCISE INSPECTOR,
            (CRIME NO.167 OF 2021)
            HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.




            SMT.SREEJA.V- SR.PP




     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 7108 OF 2021
                                           2



                                      ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with

Crime No.167 of 2021 of Hosdurg Excise Range,

Kasaragod District registered for the offence

punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari

Act, the petitioner has moved this application

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on

22.08.2021 at about 12.30 pm, the Excise Officials

detected 8.64 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor

kept concealed near the coop in the house belonging

to the petitioner, in contravention of the

provisions of the Abkari Act. Thereby, he has

committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that he has absolutely no connection

with the alleged incident. But he apprehends BAIL APPL. NO. 7108 OF 2021

unnecessary arrest and hence this application.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor on verifying

the records and on getting instruction submits

that, the contraband was detected from his own

compound.

Having considered the nature of accusation

levelled against the petitioner, I do not find any

justifiable reason to think that the Excise

officials have seized the contraband from the

property of another person. But, in fact it is

seized only from the property where the petitioner

is residing along with his family. Hence, the

materials are not sufficient to conclude that the

petitioner is entitled to get an order in his

favour as requested. Therefore, I do not think

that, this is a fit and appropriate case in which

the judicial discretion of this court can be

exercised as prayed for. Only in exceptional cases

the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be exercised

and that too in a very judicious manner and not as

a matter of course. This is not a case coming under BAIL APPL. NO. 7108 OF 2021

the said category. Hence, he is not entitled to get

pre-arrest bail as prayed for.

Accordingly, this bail application stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE SMA