IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.9236 OF 2019 CRIME NO.142/2019 OF KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

BABU SEBASTIAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O. SEBASIN, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANGALATHU VEEDU, ATINALLOOR P. O., THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN CODE - 690 538.

BY ADVS.

SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM - 690 538.

SRI AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

18.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.142 of 2019 of the Kollam Excise Range registered under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act, 1077.

3. On 9.12.2019 based on source information, the Excise Circle Inspector, Kollam inspected the farm of the applicant herein situated at Perayam village. The applicant was not present but his wife, two children and his migrant worker was present there. It is alleged that from the cow shed situated inside the farm, about 70 litres of wash was allegedly sized. On questioning the employee, he is alleged to have stated that the applicant herein had concealed the wash for the purpose of brewing arrack.

4. Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant is an A class contractor, who is residing elsewhere. He refers to the registration card issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, to substantiate his contention. According to the learned counsel, the applicant herein purchased an item of property and set up a farm by employing migrant workers. About 20 cows were in the farm and they were being looked after by his employees. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has no connection with the wash which was allegedly seized. The clean antecedents of the applicant is also highlighted by the learned counsel to bring home his point that he was roped in as an accused purely on the basis of suspicion.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary which was made available. I find from the records that the wash was seized from a farm. Admittedly the applicant was not present when the seizure was effected. Only his migrant worker was present. Prima facie, there appears to be some discrepancies in the prosecution version insofar as the involvement of the applicant is concerned. Furthermore, the wash has been seized and substantial part of the investigation is over. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the appli