ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in a crime involving abkari offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. He has filed the above application seeking his release on bail under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code. Petitioner was found transporting, and, in possession of, 825 litres of spirit in a lorry, without authority or licence, at about 3.30 p.m. on 6.5.2013 by an excise party. On his arrest and production before the magistrate he was remanded to judicial custody the same day, which still continues. His application for bail had been turned down by learned Sessions Judge vide Annexure A1 order dated 26.7.2013 holding that the embargo under S. 41A of the Abkari Act disentitle him to be released on bail.

(2.) I heard learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Apart from the contentions canvassed to challenge the implication of petitioner in the crime, learned counsel mainly stressed upon the entitlement of petitioner to have default bail under S. 167(2) of the Code stating that report has not been laid completing investigation even after his detention continuing for sixty days. Petitioner had moved an application after the expiry of sixty days of detention before the magistrate seeking default bail, but, it was turned down, and, then, he approached the Sessions Judge for bail, which too was declined vide Annexure A1 order, is the submission of counsel. Copy of his application dated 17.7.2013 moved before the magistrate seeking default bail was handed over to me for perusal. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the factual aspects involved over the arrest and detention of petitioner and continuance of his detention exceeding the period of sixty days with the investigation of crime remaining to be completed.