Petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.48 of 2012 of the Irinjalakuda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act and have filed this application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that on 11.06.2012 at the relevant time, 4 litres of arrack found in the open terrace of the building in question was seized by the excise officials. Petitioners who then were the owners of the building are suspected to be involved in the said incident.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. The building originally belonged to one Sreekumar who transferred title and possession of the same to the petitioners as per Annexure-A1 for consideration. In the first week of April, 2012, the petitioners entered into an agreement with two others for sale of the said building. Sreekumar learned that the sale consideration is more than what he got from the petitioners and thereon tried to trespass into the building. Petitioners filed O.S. No.1542 of 2012 for a decree for prohibitory injunction. While so, on 11.06.2012 Sreekumar planted the contraband in the building and informed the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent conducted a search and seized 4 litres of arrack from the open terrace of the building. Though Sreekumar was made an accused, he was not arrested. The petitioners were questioned by the 1st respondent but not arrested. In the meantime the petitioners sold the building to two others (as per agreement referred supra) as per Annexures-A2 and A3 dated 30.06.2012 and 06.07.2012. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued notice (according to the learned counsel under Sec.48 of the Abkari Act) to the petitioners. Petitioners filed B.A. No.2623 of 2013 in this Court for pre-arrest bail which was disposed of as per Annexure-A4, order on 17.06.2013 making it clear that since petitioners are not made accused, it is open to them move for pre-arrest bail in case of genuine apprehension of arrest. Second respondent issued yet another (notice under Sec.48 of the Abkari Act) which the petitioners challenged in W.P(C) No.18525 of 2013. That Writ Petitioner was withdrawn.
4. On hearing both sides it appears to me that the alleged seizure of the contraband was at a time when the building allegedly continued to be in the possession and ownership of the petitioners. Whether it was Sreekumar (who died later) who had planted it with intention to dispossess the petitioners in his attempt to realize more money from the petitioners is a matter for the investigating agency to look into. Interrogation of the petitioners is required. Hence the request made by the petitioners for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed.
5. It is directed that in case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible.
Application is disposed of as above.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv