IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3890 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CR. NO.98/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ SUBHASH @ THARAVU SUBHASH, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KALLALIMANNAL THEKKATHIL, PRAYAR THEKKUM MURI, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3890 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.R. No.98/2009 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10/6/2009, a quantity of 805 litres of wash was seized, when the petitioner was dealing with the same in the premises of the house belonging to the petitioner's sister. It is submitted that the house is an abandoned house. It is alleged that the petitioner ran away from the scene of occurrence. The Excise party was convinced about the identity of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is foisted against the petitioner and that there are no materials to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is involved in the offence. Prima facie, I am not inclined to B.A. No.3890 /2009 2 accept this contention. The matters to be proved at the time of trial need not be considered at the stage of considering the application for anticipatory bail. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is involved in four other Abkari Offences. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm