IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5480 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.4610/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KASARAGOD .................... (CRIME NO.245/2008 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL MUTHALIB,S/O A.P.ABDULLA, KONDAYOOR HOUSE,MULANCHA, UPPALA, KASARGODE. 2. MUHAMMED SHERIF, S/O YUSUF, THAYIRA MANZIL, UPPALA P.O., KASARGODE. 3. ABDUL SALEEM,S/O HAMEED, MAILTHOTTY HOUSE, UPPALA P.O., KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS(S): ---------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUMBALA. 3. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5480 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 19.8.2008 at about 6.15 p.m. a car was found parked near bus stand and, 2500 packets of Karnataka made arrack, each containing 100 ml., were seized from the car. There were three persons inside the car. They ran away, on seeing the police, but they were arrested from the spot itself. Petitioners are the said three persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioners were arrested not under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution and they have nothing to do with the arrack seized from the car. The car did not belong to the petitioners, but, the owner of the car has not been made an accused in this case. Petitioners are falsely implicated by the Circle Inspector. The mothers of first and second petitioner filed a complaint before the Director General of Police, Trivandrum complaining about the false implication and an enquiry is being conducted into this by the D.Y.S.P. 4. According to petitioners, the car of the first petitioner (A1) collided with the car from which the articles were seized. There was a dispute in this respect and the mater was settled and Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid to the first petitioner. The first petitioner had gone [B.A.No.5480/08] 2 to collect the amount from the driver of the car and he collected Rs.50,000/- from him. The first accused was returning after collecting the amount, while the police came and arrested him and implicated him and that articles were seized from the car. The second and third petitioners were arrested while they were playing cricket and regarding such arrest, Annexure-I complaint has been filed before the Director General of Police the mothers of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that petitioners are working abroad and they were waiting to return to Gulf countries and they have valid passport and visa. These in short, are the contentions of the petitioners. 5. This petition is opposed. Considering the gravity of the offence and the quantity of the article involved, it is submitted that it is not a fit case to grant bail. According to prosecution, petitioners were found inside the car and they were caught from the place of occurrence itself and the allegations to the contrary are denied. 6. On hearing both sides, in the light of the counter allegations made regarding false implication, I have gone through the documents produced and also the allegations made in the petition. It appears that the petitioners themselves have no consistent case regarding the circumstances under which they were arrested. As per the compliant Annexure-I, first and second accused were playing cricket along with 3rd accused on 19.8.2008 at about 2 p.m., while police took them into custody. But, as per the allegations in the petition, first accused was arrested while he was returning after collecting Rs.50,000/- from the drive of the car. It is relevant to note that Annexure-I was given by none other than the mothers of first and second accused, that too, after four days of the incident on 23.8.2008 but they had no case in Annexure-1 that the first accused was arrested while he was returning after collecting money. [B.A.No.5480/08] 3 In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied at this stage that the petitioners are not guilty and hence, in view of Section of 41A of Abkari Act, bail cannot be granted. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JDUGE. Krs.