IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4641 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NUMBER IS NOT DISCLOSED BY STHE POLCIE ERRATTUPETTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ----------------- K.K.ABDUL JABBAR S/O.LATE KUNJU MOIDEEN 48 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE KALATHUKADAVU PO ELAPPUNGAL ERRATTUPETTA KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4641 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail 2. The alleged offences are under clause 5(a) of the Rationing Order and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. According to petitioner, he apprehends arrest in connection with the above offences, since a crime is registered on the basis of a direction issued by the District Collector on the allegation that 144 gunny bags of raw rice were seized from the premises of the floor mill owned by the petitioner. The further allegation is that these articles were meant for distribution to the public through ration shops. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and stated at the outset that no crime has been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is not made an accused so far. The petition is filed only to circumvent an order passed by the District Collector for detention. The District Collector is empowered to pass an order to detain the petitioner for 15 days, if offence under the Essential Commodities Act and Rationing Order are committed and, accordingly, an order was also passed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, [B.A.No.4641/08] 2 his remedy is elsewhere. This petition is filed for thwarting that order, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased the bags containing raw rice from a registered dealer, as evidenced by Annexure-A3. But, she was not able to substantiate that Annexure-A3 has any connection with the articles seized from the premises. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner was not able to explain or account for the rice at the time of seizure and the bill produced was issued on a Sunday, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.