IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1678 of 2010 C.R.NO.31 OF 2010 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3: -------------------- 1. UNNI PILLAI, PARAYIL HOUSE, KALTHOTTY P.O., AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.UNNI PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, KALTHOTTY P.O., AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KATTAPPANA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1678 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.R. No.31 of 2010 of Excise Range Office, Kattappana, Idukki District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7.3.2010, the first accused was found engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the tea shop run by accused Nos.2 and 3. On seeing the Excise party, accused No.2 ran away. It is also alleged that accused No.3 had entrusted the Indian Made Foreign Liquor to accused No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners put forward his arguments in great detail. He read the whole of the mahazar and the occurrence report and tried to pick holes in the same to support the B.A. NO. 1678 OF 2010 :: 2 :: argument that the petitioners are thoroughly innocent. At this stage, when the question is whether anticipatory bail is to be granted to the petitioners, it is not proper to consider the facts so meticulously to arrive at a conclusion whether the petitioners are guilty of the offence. The question to be considered is whether, there are materials, prima facie, to connect the petitioners with the offence alleged against them. On a perusal of the case diary, I am satisfied that there are, prima facie, materials to connect the petitioners with the offence. The contention raised by the petitioner is a matter for evidence and proof at the time of trial. That cannot be done at this stage. 5. The offence alleged against the petitioners is grave in nature. This is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/