IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4700 of 2008(B) ----------------------------- Crl.M.P.NO.2761/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA (CRIME NO.138/2008 OF VELLATHOOVAL POICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER : -------------- SAJI, 34 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, ELAVUMKAL VEETTIL ADAKANEETTI BHAGAM, PERINCHAMKUTTY KARAYIL, KONNATHADY VILLAGE DEVICOLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.H.O, VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, VELLATHOOVAL BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4700 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found selling arrack on 24.05.2008, but the petitioner could not be arrested since he ran away from the place. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. The police came in search of the petitioner on 25.06.2008 to his house when the petitioner was not present in the house. The petitioner made enquiries and came to know that a crime is registered against the petitioner. It was pointed out that the person to whom the article was allegedly sold could not be found out by the police and it is also not clear from whose information, the details of the petitioner was obtained. The F.I.R. contains the complete details of the petitioner, his age, address etc. 4. It was also submitted that the petitioner is on enimical terms with one Sajeesh Mathew, who is a neighbour of the B.A.4700/2008 2 petitioner. It was at his instance that this crime was registered falsely against the petitioner. It is also submitted that one of the witnesses is a close relative of the said Sajeesh Mathew. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals that the details of the petitioner were given by those who had witnessed the occurrence and though the crime is committed on 24.05.2008, the petitioner could not be arrested till now. The other allegations are denied. On hearing both sides I find that in a case of this nature, bail cannot be granted unless the petitioner substantiate his innocence. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not by themselves be sufficient at this stage to probabilise the case of a false implication. A mere counter allegation be itself may not lead to any inference that the petitioner is innocent. Hence, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac