IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5092 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.12/08 KOLAZHY RANGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- SATHEESH @ KANNAN, AGED 23, S/O.JAYAN, ATTASSERY, MATTAMPURAM, P.O.KURICHIKKARA, MADAKKATHARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.DEVIPRASADAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOLAZHY EXCISE RANGE, TRICHUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5092 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the petitioner was riding a motor cycle, in which the first accused was also travelling and in between them, a can was placed which contained 10 litres of arrack. They were apprehended by the police party, while the petitioner ran away from the spot and he is the second accused. First accused was arrested from the spot along with the contraband article. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations. He is aged 23 years and he is living with his parents and has obtained a job recently. The petitioner is a member of a trade union and this case is falsely foisted because of the rivalry of the Excise officials against the trade union activity of the petitioner. Petitioner apprehends arrest and detention. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence was committed on 29.7.2008 and the petitioner's name was mentioned in the mahazar itself. The case was registered against the petitioner as the second accused. First BA.5092/08 2 accused was arrested from the spot and witnesses were also questioned and the details of the petitioner were collected from the witnesses on the date of occurrence itself. It is not correct to say that the petitioner is innocent. First accused was arrested and remanded and bail was granted to him only after considerable period of detention. The petitioner is absconding and he was not available for arrest. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not able to substantiate or probablise his innocence and in the absence of it, even regular bail cannot be granted by virtue of Section 41A of the Abkari Act. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail also. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.