IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6839 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.41/2008 OF MALLAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- PONNAPPAN @ GOPALAN, S/O.PODIYAN, ONAKKAODU, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MALLAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6839 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found carrying 4 litres of arrack. On seeing the Excise party, he tried to escape. He was caught hold by the Excise officials, but he wriggled out from their clutches and escaped. The article was seized from the spot. A mahazar was also prepared. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner has no connection with the contraband articles seized. He is not the person who was carrying the same. When he was arrested in connection with another case, a request was made to be a witness in another case. Petitioner was implicated only because he refused to be a witness in another case involving abkari offence, at the request of the Excise officials. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor BA No.6839/08 2 submitted that this is a case where the identity of petitioner was clearly revealed from the spot itself and on enquiry made also, the identity was confirmed. He was involved in another crime under the Abkari Act, and the mahazar was prepared and the name and address of the petitioner were shown in the documents themselves. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The bare assertions may not be sufficient to establish the innocence of petitioner. In the absence of any materials to support the plea of innocence, I find it difficult to act upon it at this stage. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.