IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2931 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.7/1009 OF THRISSUR EXCISE RANGE (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- RAFFIQ, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, PARAYIL HOUSE, ANDATHODE DESOM, PUNNAYOORKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.7 OF 2009 OF THRISSUR EXCISE RANGE). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2931 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 31st May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. According to prosecution, a car in which contraband articles were transported by first and second accused got involved in an accident. The first and second accused were injured and they were hospitalised. The car contained 825 litres of spirit. Therefore, accused were arrested and on investigation, it was revealed that petitioner, who is third accused had arranged the vehicle and he also paid money for transportation. It was at the instance of petitioner that spirit was transported. The incident occurred on 5.2.2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first accused was known to petitioner and hence at his request, a vehicle was arranged. But, he was not aware that vehicle was being used for the purpose of transporting of spirit. Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He had his course in Lift Technology in NILT and is searching for a job. BA NO.2931/10 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, petitioner has specific involvement in the offence and it is at his instance that spirit is transported. He was escorting the vehicle from Coimbatore to the place of incident, through Mannuthy. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner and his involvement, I am satisfied that petitioner is required for the purpose of interrogation and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs