IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3326 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.70/08 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- MANOJAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MEETHALE THANKAYAMKUTTYIL HOUSE, UMMATHUR, PARAKKADAVU P.O., NADAPURAM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAYAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3326 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is first accused in the crime. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 21.3.2008, the Sub Inspector of Police and other officials were on patrol duty and they got information that liquor is being transported in the auto rickshaw and they proceeded towards the scene of occurrence and at about 7.30 PM, they saw the auto rickshaw coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police, the auto rickshaw stopped and the driver and another person (who was sitting inside the auto rickshaw), ran away abandoning the vehicle. 70 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor each containing 180 ml were found inside the auto rickshaw and they were seized. First accused is the driver of the vehicle which belonged to him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. According to him, he lost the auto rickshaw at a time when he had parked the same on the road and gone to a relative's house. When he came back after the BA.3326/08 2 visit, he found that the auto rickshaw was missing and hence he lodged a complaint before the police. But, no action was taken on the complaint. It is submitted that the police officer told him that nobody would require his auto rickshaw and the officer took a passive approach in the matter. Thereafter, he had to lodge a complaint to the Chief Minister and various others and a copy of the representation is produced along with the petition . 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per records, the petitioner was seen driving the vehicle and the auto rickshaw belonged to him. No complaint is received at the police station as alleged by the petitioner. No report was made to the police on the same day, as alleged by the petitioner. According to the police, petitioner is involved in the offence. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.