ABHILASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 48 of 2012 of Excise Range, Ernakulam for having committed offences punishable under S.55(a), S.55D, S.55E, S.55F, S.55G, S.58 and S.62 of the Abkari Act. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that on 31/05/2012 the Excise Officers seized 1728 liters of spirit contained in 54 plastic cans which were stored in the cabin of a lorry which was parked near a petrol pump at Edappally. Petitioner says that he was arrested from his work place on 10/07/2012. However, he claims that he is in no way connected with the incident as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, none of the records would show his actual involvement in the incident. He has been falsely implicated in the crime and no one has spoken about his presence at the spot or no one had identified him. The only evidence which the prosecution relies on is that the petitioner received several calls from the first accused and it was based on that fact that the petitioner has been implicated and arrested in the case.

(2.) Sri. Babu S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that apart from anything else, petitioner has been in custody for more than 60 days and at any rate, he is entitled to statutory bail under S.167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC. Learned counsel in support of his claim relied on the decision reported in Sreerajan v. State of Kerala, 2001 KHC 194 : 2001 (1) KLT 827 : 2001 (1) KLJ 537 : ILR 2001 (1) Ker. 644 : 2001 CriLJ 1944 and Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2001 KHC 650 : 2001 (5) SCC 34 : 2001 (2) KLT SN 112 : AIR 2001 SC 2369 : 2001 CriLJ 2941. Learned counsel also referred to the decision reported in Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, 2006 KHC 983 : AIR 2006 SC 2622 : 2006 (6) SCC 277 : JT 2006 (6) SC 619 : 2006 (4) KLT 460 : 2006 (3) SCC (Cri) 101 : 2007 (1) KLD 1 : 2006 CriLJ 3621 and Vinu v. State of Kerala, 2011 (4) KHC 853 : 2011 (4) KLT 994 : 2012 (1) KLD 32 : 2012 (1) KLJ 105 : ILR 2012 (1) Ker. 776. Attention was also drawn to the decision reported in Boban v. Union of India, 2005 KHC 716 : 2005 (2) KLT 831 : 2005 (2) KLJ 115 : ILR 2005 (2) Ker. 549 : 2005 (1) KLD 511 : 2005 CriLJ 2801.

(3.) It is contended that the maximum punishment which the Court can impose upon the petitioner who is prosecuted for the offence under S.55(a) Abkari Act is for a term of imprisonment upto ten years. Even if the petitioner is found guilty of all the offences, the period of sentence that could be awarded is only a term of imprisonment of less than 10 years except in case of offences under S.55(a) and S.58 wherein the maximum term of imprisonment is upto to 10 years. As the petitioner has already undergone judicial custody for 60 days, it is contended that going by S.167(2)(a)(ii) CrPC since final report has not been filed within the stipulated time, petitioner is entitled to statutory bail.