The court highlighted the need for adequate proof in allegations regarding liquor sales and the importance of due process in searches.

O R D E R

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 55(i), 33(2), 61 and 63 of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor on 21-9-2008 at about 7.30 p.m. in the premises of a quarry. Excise officials apprehended petitioner and the articles were seized. There were four bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor each containing one litre. Plastic pot, glass and a plastic jug were also found. But 50 persons in the locality rushed to the scene and they forcibly took away the accused and rescued him. Liquor bottles were also taken away. Therefore, glass, plastic jug and plastic pot were seized. A crime was registered against petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations are absolutely false. A Preventive Officer came to petitioner's house stating that they got information that there was liquor in petitioner's house. The women who were present in the house resisted his move to search the house, when they were molested. People of the locality intervened and drove away the Preventive Officer. Later, petitioner's wife went to the police station to make a complaint, but she was asked to surrender BA 6381 /08 -2-

before the Excise Officials first and then come to the police for lodging the complaint. In such circumstance, petitioner has approached this Court with this petition for anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is understood that Crime No.305/2008 was registered by the police against petitioner and others under section 143, 147, 342, 506(i), 294(b), 332 and 225 read with section 149 IPC. on the basis of a complaint made by the Preventive Officer.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that liquor bottles were not seized, since there was no incident, as alleged. It is also submitted that even as per the mahazar, though a sale of liquor was being carried on, the bottles allegedly found with petitioner were sealed and not opened. There cannot be a sale, without opening the bottles and this itself indicates the falsity of the allegations made, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that offence under section 332 IPC is included, when the case was registered, but said section is applicable only in the case of a house-search by breaking open the same. All these mistakes were committed only because there is no bona fides in the allegations made and some false allegations are made in a hurry.

BA 6381 /08 -3-

It is also submitted that in Crime No.305/2008 anticipatory bail was granted to petitioner by the Sessions Court.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where petitioner was apprehended from the spot and he was rescued by 50 persons along with liquor bottles. Preventive Officer was also assaulted by them and a crime was registered against petitioner and others.

6. On hearing both sides, considering the submissions made on both sides, I find that it is only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner.

7. Hence, the following order is passed:-

(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when BA 6381 /08 -4-

directed and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation.

ii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

This petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.