Bail Appl./7902/2015 of SELVARAJ @ SUPER RAJU Vs STATE OF KERALA on 29 December 2015

O R D E R

Both these applications are filed by Mr.Selvaraj @Super Raju. The case of the petitioner is that he isaccused in Excise Crime No.41/2015 of Kattakada PoliceStation as well as in Crime No.65/2015 of KattakadaPolice Station.

2. It is the submission that Crime No.41/2015 isregistered for offences under Sections 8(1) & 8(2) of theAbkari Act and Crime No.65/2015 of Kattakada PoliceStation is registered for offences under Sections 8(1), 8(2)& 55(g) of the Abkari Act. It is the further submissionthat originally, the petitioner was granted bail in ExciseCrime No.41/2015 of Kattakada Police Station by thisCourt. While granting bail, a condition was imposed bythis Court that during the bail period, the petitioner shallnot involve in similar offences. After the registering ofCrime No.65/2015 of Kattakada Police Station, an

application was moved before the court below and thebail granted by this Court got cancelled. It is also thesubmission that the petitioner was arrested in connectionwith Crime No.65/2015 on 27.10.2015. The bail grantedin Crime No.41/2015 was cancelled by the court below byits order dated 12.11.2015.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The allegation is that the petitioner was in possession of 4 litres of illicit arrack. There is a furtherallegation that 300 litres of wash was also seized from thepremises of the house of the petitioner.

5. It is the submission made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner before me that after thegranting of bail by this Court in Crime No.41/2015 ofKattakada Excise Officer, the excise officials registered afalse case against the petitioner and got the said bailcancelled and thereby disallowed to enjoy the bailgranted by this Court.

It is the submission made by the learned

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted before me that the case diary is available for perusal and it canbe seen that it is not a false case. It is the furthersubmission that 300 litres of wash was kept in about 20cans and that itself vouch the truthfulness of the case.

6. After considering the fact that the allegation isthat the petitioner was in possession of about 300 litresof wash and some liquor and further keeping in mind thatthe petitioner was arrested as back as on 27.10.2015, Ifeel that it may only just and proper to give one morechance to the petitioner to reform.

Thus, the petitioner is granted bail in both crimes on the very same conditions, on which, originally, thepetitioner was granted bail by this Court. That is, (a)The petitioner shall be released on bail in both crimes

on his executing a bond for 50,000/- (Rupees fifty₹thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate havingjurisdiction in each crime.

(b) The sureties shall produce documents to establishtheir identity and solvency. The learned Magistrate

..4..

need not insist on solvency certificate, but, other documents can also be perused to find out whether thesureties are solvent or not.

(c) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 10.00a.m and 11.00 a.m. until the final report is filed in bothcrimes.

(d) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt toinfluence the witnesses.influence the witnesses.

(e) The petitioner shall not, in any manner, interfere or meddle with the investigation.

(f) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail, getinvolved in any offence. involved in any offence.

In case, any of the above conditions is violated, bailgranted to the petitioner hereby is liable to be cancelled, for which, the investigating officer may move application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Sd/-

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH

JUDGE