Shanu Alex vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1777 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 27TH MAGHA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 8048 OF 2021
         CRIME NO.73/2021 OF VARKALA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1163/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL
                       DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

          SHANU ALEX,
          AGED 28 YEARS
          S/O. ALOCIOUS, SHANU BHAVAN, MOONGODE P.O., VARKALA
          DESOM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695144.

          BY ADV M.R.SASITH



RESPONDENT/STATE:

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


OTHER PRESENT:

          SMT. SEETHA.S ( SR.P.P)




THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.8048/2021                           2

                                    ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.73/2021 of Varkala

Excise Range Office, which has been registered alleging commission of

offences under Sections 58 & 67(b) of Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused at the

initial stage was that they were found in possession of 54 litres of Indian Made

Foreign Liquor which was being transported in a car bearing registration

No.KL-16D-3002. It was alleged that on seeing the Excise Officials , the

accused had run away from the place.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that in order to help the

persons from whom the actual recovery was made, a false case was registered

against the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner had filed

a complaint before the Deputy Excise Commissioner in that regard. It is

submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be

necessary in the matter.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that

the investigation in the matter revealed that the liquor recovered from the

possession of the petitioner and the other accused was actually stolen from a

godown of the Kerala State Beverages of Corporation on various dates. It is

submitted that the offence was committed in the wee hours on various dates

and CCTV footages have been recovered which show that the petitioner was

clearly involved in the matter. It is submitted that CDR details of the

petitioner also correspond to the CCTV visuals. It is submitted that since the

offence of theft of property belonging to a Government Corporation is

involved, the petitioner and the other accused in the case have to be

thoroughly interrogated and they are not entitled to be released on

anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering

the allegations now raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that the

petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. In the result, the bail application

fails and it is dismissed.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE acd