IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 803 of 2010 CRIME NO.27 OF 2010 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ ABIN THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, SHINY COTTAGE, MARIYANAD, PUTHUKURICHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 803 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.27 of 2010 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Clause 16 of the Kerosene Control Order and Sections 3 and 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.1.2010, when the police party was conducting night patrol duty, at about 11 PM, a tanker lorry, bearing registration No.KL09/R.2989, was intercepted by the police. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were found in the lorry. On questioning, they stated that they were going to Thoothukudy to purchase fish. They also stated that the boxes found in the lorry were for taking fish in the same. On further questioning, they stated that kerosene was kept inside the lorry and that the kerosene was B.A. NO. 803 OF 2010 :: 2 :: purchased from accused No.1 at the rate of Rs.30/- per litre. A total quantity of 3080 litres of kerosene was found in the lorry. The lorry and kerosene were seized. When accused Nos.2 and 3 were questioned, originally they stated that they are Robinson and Stanly. On further questioning, they had to admit that they are Manoj and Sudheesh. 4. The investigation revealed that accused No.1 had taken a building on rent for the purpose of trade in kerosene oil, making the landlord believe that he had the necessary permit and licence. There is also other evidence to indicate that the petitioner was running business in kerosene in that shop. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not doing business in kerosene and that he has no connection with accused Nos.2 and 3. It is also stated that he had not sold the kerosene which was seized by the police. The petitioner has produced Annexure C to show that he was elected as the President of Kerala Catholic Youth Movement. This document has absolutely no relevance. The petitioner has also produced Annexure D cash bills, sixteen in number, which would show that on 20.1.2010 B.A. NO. 803 OF 2010 :: 3 :: various quantities of kerosene oil were sold to several people. The learned counsel submitted that the persons who purchased the kerosene are fishermen and all of them together had transported the kerosene in question. What is the connection of the petitioner with the fishermen is not stated. It is also not stated as to how the petitioner obtained all these details. Annexure E is the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The petitioner is not a party to that proceeding. What is the relevance of Annexure E is not known. The learned counsel stated that in 2005 such an incident occurred as in the present case and the fishermen made representations and got back the kerosene as per Annexure E order. This document has no relevance for the purpose of the present case. 6. There are materials to arrive at a conclusion, prima facie, that the petitioner is involved in the offence. I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the petitioner that the petitioner has no connection at all with the transaction in question. While disposing of this Bail Application, no conclusive finding or observation on that aspect is required. Prima facie, there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. B.A. NO. 803 OF 2010 :: 4 :: 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the facts and circumstances of the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/