IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3285 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CR.NO.11/10 OF MANANTHAVADY EXCISE RANGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT) .............. PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- THOMAS ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 49 YEARS, KULATHINGAL VEEDU, VARAYAL.P.O, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, MANANTHAWADY. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3285 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 12.04.2010 at about 1.30 P.M., petitioner was found engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. On seeing the officials, petitioner ran away, abandoning the articles. On a search of the premises, 2.8 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were seized crime was registered against petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not involved in the offence. He is a heart patient and he is taking treatment as evidenced by Annexure-2 document with effect from 04.12.2006 to 21.12.2006. There is no allegation in the F.I. Statement that any mobile phone was seized from the place of occurrence. 4. Petitioner was questioned by the investigating officer, when he reported before him as per the direction of this court. Hence, petitioner is not required for investigation. The incident B.A. No. 3285 / 2010 2 happened as early as on 12.04.2010. It is also pointed out that there is nothing in the F.I. Statement to identify petitioner. It is only stated that a person wearing a coffee brown colour shirt, ran away and this was seen at the distance of 30 metres. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer and he was questioned. From the case diary, involvement of petitioner in the offence is clearly revealed. In the F.I. Statement itself, petitioner's name finds a place. A mobile phone was seized from the premises and this fact is mentioned in the seizure mahazar itself. The said phone was sent for examination and it was found that the SIM Card was purchased in the name of petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner is not able to probabalise his innocence. The facts stated by petitioner are not sufficient for this court to conclude his innocence at this stage, especially, since there are materials in the case diary, which speak against him. Seizure of a mobile phone is revealed from the mahazar itself and this fact also is to be taken into account. B.A. No. 3285 / 2010 3 In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. 7. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln