ORDER : This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.92 of 2019 registered at the Chadayamangalam Excise Range under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 01.09.2019, while the Excise Range Inspector, Chadayamangalam was on patrol duty, the applicant was found sitting on a bike and selling a bottle of Indian Made Foreign Liquor to another person. On seeing the Excise personnel, the purchaser took to his heels. The applicant was apprehended and from his possession, 1.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized. He was arrested and he remains in custody. 4. Sri. N.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the instant case is a clear instance of abuse of penal provisions contained in the Abkari Act. For having possessed 1.5 liters of IMFL, the possession of which is permitted by law, the applicant has been languishing in custody for about 60 days. It is urged by the learned counsel that the applicant is a habitual drinker and on the date of incident, he had purchased IMFL from the retail shop of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. While he was returning back home, he was intercepted by the police. Noticing that he had alcohol in his possession, he was arrested by levelling a false accusation that he was engaged in the sale of IMFL. 5. The learned counsel pointed out that the State owned Beverages Corporation and Consumerfed have a monopoly in selling Indian Made Foreign Liqour, beer, wine, Foreign made Foreign liquor, Foreign made Wine in the State. Alcohol sales from the outlets of Kerala State Beverages Corporation and the Consumerfed registered phenomenal increase and the total sales for the year 2018-2019 was Rs.14508 Crores whereas for the previous year, alcohol has contributed more than 11,000 Crores to the State Exchequer. When the Rules permit a person to have in his possession upto 3 litres of IMFL, the arrest and detention of the applicant for a prolonged period on cooked up allegations for merely possessing IMFL is grossly unjust and unreasonable, submits the learned counsel. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that though investigation has been completed, the fact remains that the applicant is involved in 8 other crimes registered on identical allegations. 7. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that though investigation has been completed, the fact remains that the applicant is involved in 8 other crimes registered on identical allegations. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 8. I find that the applicant has been in custody for about 60 days for possessing 1.5 litres of IMFL. The records reveal that the investigation is more or less complete. On a specific query, the learned public prosecutor submits that the applicant has not been found guilty by a Court of law in any of the cases in which he is involved. In the facts and circumstances, his further detention in custody does not appear to be necessary. 9. Before parting, I note that Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act, which the applicant has allegedly violated, is punishable with imprisonment for upto 10 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh. The said case is triable by a court of Session. It has to be noted that the quantity which was in the possession of the applicant is just 1.5 litres of IMFL. Since the prosecution has no case that the alcohol is illicit, the same could only have been purchased from a State owned Corporation. However, as per the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the imprisonment provided for possessing upto 1 kg. Of Cannabis, a prohibited narcotic substance, is rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year or fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-. The said case is triable by a Magistrate. There cannot be any justification for such disparity in the sentence. One cannot ignore the fact that huge number of cases are registered for possessing IMFL as in the instant case and such cases are clogging the Sessions Courts and the Assistant Sessions Courts. The present state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue. 10. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that the applicant can now be released on bail. 11. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. 11. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. 2. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence. 3. He shall not commit any offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.