Judgment : 1. Petitioner is the 3rd accused, in Crime No.95 of 2008 of the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara for the offence punishable under Sections 8(1), (2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act for dealing with 595 wash and 15 litres of arrack on 19.11.2008, is in custody from 21.10.2013 and requests for bail. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was absconding and that final report is filed in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikkara. Learned magistrate took the case on file as C.P. No.68 of 2012. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was served with summons in C.P. No.68 of 2012 and on the day fixed for appearance he appeared through counsel and applied for exemption on account of his inability to attend the court that day. That application was rejected and non-bailable warrant was issued. Petitioner surrendered on 21.10.2013 and was remanded. Learned counsel submits, referring to the decisions in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala (2008 [3] KLT 748) and George v. State of Kerala (2009 [1] KLT 277) that since petitioner was served with summons in C.P. No.68 of 2012, he could not have been issued a non-bailable warrant and at any rate, detained in custody when he surrendered. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that when the petitioner appeared through counsel, his request for exemption ought to have allowed. 4. I am not able to accept either of the above contentions. Decisions relied on by the learned counsel only stated that when court issues summons and the accused appears pursuant to that summons he should not be taken by surprise by ordering his judicial custody. Here, it is not when the petitioner appeared on summons that his detention was ordered. May be, appearing through counsel he applied for exemption. It was well within the power of the learned magistrate to consider whether that application could be allowed or not. When the exemption application was rejected that can be followed by a non-bailable warrant. I find no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the learned magistrate. 5. Having considered the factsand further detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is not required, I am inclined to grant bail subject to stringent conditions since presence of the petitioner at the time of trial has to be ensured. I find no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the learned magistrate. 5. Having considered the factsand further detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is not required, I am inclined to grant bail subject to stringent conditions since presence of the petitioner at the time of trial has to be ensured. Resultantly, the application is allowed as under: (i) Petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.95 of 2012 of the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara (C.P.No.68 of 2012 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara ). (ii) Petitioner shall execute bail bond within two weeks from this day and execute bail bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate. (iii) On such bond being executed, petitioner (if not required to be detained otherwise) shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner. (b) Petitioner shall not go beyond Mavelikkara Taluk until otherwise ordered and except with the permission of the learned magistrate (after committal, of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara). (c) Except for compelling reasons to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate or the trial court (after committal) petitioner shall not fail to appear in court on the dates on which the case is posted. (d) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (iv) It is made clear that in case any of the above conditions is violated, it is open to the Officer investigating the case to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate and before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as aforesaid after committal as held in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).