IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2159 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- (CR.NO.78/2009 OF AMARAVILA EXCISE RANGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------- JOHNY @ JOHNYCHAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.ZACHARIAH (LATE), PADINJAREKALAM HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY.P.O, CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RAGE OFFICE, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2159 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, on 12.12.2009 at about 7.30 P.M., a vehicle was intercepted and 6666 litres of spirit were seized from the vehicle. The driver (A2) ran away and cleaner(A1) was arrested from the spot. On questioning him, it was revealed that it was at the instance of third and fourth accused that spirit was transported. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has absolutely no connection with first accused, except for the fact that he had once upon a time worked with him as his driver. It is also submitted that petitioner is not engaged in any abkari business and he is a farmer and he is doing business in Tamil Nadu. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application and submitted that Mobile Phones were seized from the accused and call details reveal that first and second accused were having B.A. No. 2159 of 2010 2 constant contact over phone with petitioner. He is required for the purpose of interrogation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and petitioner will be required for interrogation, to ascertain the source of the article etc. Petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he appears or not, police is at liberty to arrest and proceed in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln