IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7504 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.7325/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- AJITHKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, KARIYCKAKAM VEEDU, POOTHAMCODE,VENPAKAL DESOM ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED VIA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR THIRUPURAM EXCISE RANGE, NEYYATTINKARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ B. A. No. 7504 OF 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. Alleged offence is under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. According to the prosecution on 12.10.08 at about 10.15 A.M. , petitioner was found transporting 160 litres of spirit in 5 cans in an autorikshaw and vehicle was stopped on signal by the respondents. On seeing them, accused ran away abandoning the articles and those were seized from the spot. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegation levelled against him. He is an employee of Water Authority as evidenced by annexure C medical certificate. It is submitted that annexure B to C would show that he was on leave on medical ground. It is also pointed out that petitioner's identity was not known to any person in the locality since the incident did not occur in the locality where he is residing. But according to the respondents, the details of the petitioner were given by the persons in the locality which can not B.A. No.7504/08 : 2 : be believed. 4. This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is involved in another crime and he was arrested in that case while he was in custody in the other case. His arrest in this case was recorded on 25.11.08. The petitioner was correctly identified by persons in the locality and full details were obtained by the respondent from spot itself and those were shown in the mahazar and other documents prepared at the spot. 5. On hearing both sides, from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not fully satisfied about the innocence of the accused or that he will not commit any offence. Hence, in view Section 41 A of the Abkari Act, bail cannot be granted, Petition is dismissed. (K. HEMA, JUDGE) KMD