IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3964 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRMP.2569/2009 of J.M.F.C., ADOOR CRIME NO.126/2009 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- HARI JOHN @ KISHOR, S/O.YOHANNAN, MARANGATTUVADDAKKETHIL VEETTIL, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN SRI.M.N.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3964 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.126/2009 of Pandalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The petitioner was an Excise Guard. He is under suspension. In the present case, he was arrested on 5/07/2009 and he is in judicial custody. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: On 13/02/2009 at Panthalam, a Maruti Zen Estile Car driven by the first accused was intercepted by the police. It was found that 700 litres of spirit was being transported in that vehicle. The spirit was seized and the first accused (Haridasan) was arrested. On examination of the call details in the mobile phone of the first accused, it was revealed that on the day of the incident, there was constant contact between the first accused and the second accused. The second accused, namely, Bincy was B.A. No.3964/ 2009 Page numbers arrested in the case on 28/06/2009. On examination of the call details in respect of the mobile phone of Bincy, it was revealed that on 13/02/2009, several calls to that phone were made from a particular mobile phone number. That number was traced out and it was found that the mobile phone belongs to the wife of the petitioner. The investigation revealed that the second accused, Bincy was in Sub Jail, Pala in connection with another case. He became a friend of the 3rd accused, Hari John, at Sub Jail, Pala. The 3rd accused was undergoing detention in connection with an abkari cases in Sub Jail, Pala. The acquaintance and friendship resulted in exchanging the mobile phone numbers. On 12/02/2009, accused No.3 contacted accused No.2 over mobile phone and asked whether the latter could transport spirit from Tamil Nadu. The second accused agreed. The 3rd accused directed the second accused to go to Chengannur. From Chengannur, the second accused was provided with an Indica Car. The second accused is a driver by profession. He was directed to take the car to Coimbatore road. The second accused went there. He was directed to follow the Maruti Zen car driven B.A. No.3964/ 2009 Page numbers by the first accused. The second accused was informed that spirit was being transported in the Maruti car and that the car driven by the second accused should follow the Maruti Car. Accordingly, the second accused followed the Maruti car. There were constant contacts between the first accused and the second accused over mobile phone during the journey. At Kozhencherry, the second accused was paid Rs.2,000/- and the vehicle driven by him was taken over by another person. The second accused left the place. It was thereafter, that the vehicle was intercepted at Panthalam by the police. 5. The prosecution case is that the 3rd accused is the person who really transported the spirit and he directed the first accused to transport the same in the Maruti car. The second accused was directed to follow the Maruti car, in which the spirit was being transported. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. K. Harilal submitted that there is nothing to connect the 3rd accused with the offence. He submitted that ingredients of Section 8(1) are not made out. B.A. No.3964/ 2009 Page numbers 7. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While disposing of the Bail Application, it is not desirable to deal with the contentions on merits and to arrive at a finding thereon,as it would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are enough materials to connect the 3rd accused with the offence. 8. The 3rd accused is a person who knows about the consequences of involving in an abkari offence. He was an Excise Guard. He was suspended while in service. He was in Sub Jail, Pala on account of another abkari offence. While in Sub Jail, Pala, he got acquaintance with the second accused. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would seriously affect the proper investigation of the case. There is every likelihood of the petitioner indulging in influencing or intimidating the prosecution witnesses. It is also likely, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the petitioner/3rd accused may make himself scarce. 9. The sequence of events as revealed from the Case B.A. No.3964/ 2009 Page numbers Diary shows the perfect manner in which the operation to transport the spirit was carried out in the case. The Spirit Mafia should be dealt with very firmly; or else it would seriously affect the interests of the general public. Parameters for considering the request for bail in an abkari offence involving a few litres of arrack and the parameters to be applied while dealing with the case of transporting of large quantity of spirit by an organised group of persons should not be the same. In the latter case, a more rigorous approach is necessary. Releasing the accused involved in such cases, on counting the days of their detention, is not desirable. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm