IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 176 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO. 431/2000 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10. ------------------------------ SANTHOSH JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.LATE JOSEPH, MUPRAPPULLIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA COURT,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 176 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 29000 litres of spirit were seized from the various houses taken on rent by accused nos. 1 to 6, who were engaged in abkari business on 30.11.2000. A crime was registered and investigation was conducted and it was found that A1 to A6 are actually conducting abkari business and A7 to A10 were aiding them to get spirit and A11 to A12 were having licence for the business. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Computer Engineer and he is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner was working abroad till 1998, and thereafter he came back and settled in his native place and in 2002 he went to United States and worked there as Computer Engineer and settled there with family. Recently he came to India with his child aged 3 years and he came to know that he is falsely implicated in the offence. Petitioner was doing business in financial transactions in 1998 and he advanced an amount to first accused and in order to avoid repayment, he implicated petitioner falsely when he was arrested. 4. It is pointed out that first accused was under the impression that if petitioner is implicated as an accused he may [B.A.No.176/09] 2 get political support, since petitioner's brother is a PSC member and an active politician. It is also submitted that accused nos.7 to 9 are already granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per Annexure-B order. The 5th accused, who is alleged to have major role in the office, is also granted anticipatory bail as per Annexure-C order, after filing charge-sheet. Petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner apprehends arrest for having committed a non-bailable offence. The co-accused, who are similarly placed, were granted anticipatory bail. It appears that petitioner was not aware of the allegations levelled against him till recently and therefore it is only fit and proper that anticipatory bail can be granted to him. Except the confession statement made by co-accused, there is no evidence against petitioner in respect of the allegations made. Hence, the following order is passed: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.