IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7191 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 754/2008 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- MANIKANDAN, AGED 27 YEARS, MACHINARIYIL HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, CHUNANGAD, AMBALAPARA, OTTAPALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7191 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found carrying a can containing 9 litres of arrack and on seeing the police, he abandoned the article and ran away. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that accused was not arrested from the spot and petitioner is falsely implicated subsequently. According to prosecution, details regarding the accused were furnished by persons who were coming from the opposite direction and as per the mahazar and other records, accused is described as Manoj, S/o.Ponnu. Petitioner is Manikandan, S/o.Velayudan. There is clear mistake in the identity and petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application for anticipatory bail and pointed out that petitioner is known as Manoj and his father is also known as Ponnu. Since, they BA.7191/08 2 are known in different names, the details stated in the mahazar do not mean that petitioner is not involved in the offence. It is also pointed out that addresses shown in the mahazar and in this petition are one and the same. On hearing both sides, at this stage it cannot be said that there is mistake in the name and address of the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations made and the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 2.10.2008 and petitioner is not available for arrest so far. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.