IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4457 of 2008(B) ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.96/2008 OF KARUNAGAPALLY EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE) PETITIONER: ----------- SUNIL, S/O KOCHUKESAVAN, RESIDING AT KOCHU KAKKOTTU, SOUTH WEST THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT : ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PREVENTIVE OFFICER, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4457 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 8(1) & (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 70 litres of arrack. The petitioner escaped from scene and hence he could not be arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this case is falsely foisted against the petitioner, since the petitioner's cousin who is involved in offences under the Abkari Act is being legally assisted by the petitioner, who is an Advocate Clerk by profession. According to him, in all cases in which the petitioner's cousin is involved, petitioner is making arrangements for getting bail etc. Therefore, certain persons who are engaged in sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor having enimity towards persons who are carrying on business in country liquor have falsely implicated the petitioner and a crime is registered against the petitioner at their instance. There is a clash between two groups of people who are engaged in sale of IMFL and country liquor in that locality. The B.A.4457/2008 2 petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that earlier also, the petitioner is involved in a crime of similar nature and this is not a sole case registered against the petitioner. On hearing both sides, I find that on the mere assertions made by the petitioner, it cannot be held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged, that too, in the absence of any evidence. It has also come out that the petitioner is involved in another crime under the Abkari Act. Hence in view of Section 41A of Abkari Act, even bail cannot be granted. Therefore, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail also. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to probabalise his innocence by sufficient materials, in which event, this Order will not stand in the way of granting bail to him. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac