IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5265 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 188/2002 OF POOJAPPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED No.5:- ----------------- SUNILKUMAR @ SUDHEVAN, 42 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER ABHIRAMI HOUSE, ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULOAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5265 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of September,2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sections 465, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, on 4-9-2002 police seized a lorry from the property owned by the 1st accused and huge quantity of spirit from the lorry. Case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 6 have committed the offence and they were in possession of the spirit etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was implicated in the offence, only as per charge sheet laid on 10-11-2007 i.e, after five years of the incident. Even as per the charge sheet submitted before the court, no material is available to implicate petitioner with the crime. None of the witnesses cited by the prosecution implicated petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner is falsely BA 5265/08 -2- implicated in various other crimes also, with a view to help other abkari contractors. Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in connection with proceedings initiated only against petitioner's property for recovery of kist arrears, avoiding other contractors. Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and the property from where the lorry was seized belonged to a totally different person and the lorry also did not belong to petitioner. Petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the lorry in any capacity. 4. The application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is involved in other crimes also. Sidharthan who was a witness referred to the presence of petitioner at the scene, as revealed from the case diary but he conceded that the said person is not cited as a witness in the charge sheet. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that petitioner was shown as an absconding accused, and a warrant is pending against him. Therefore, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, especially in an offence of this nature, involving huge quantity of spirit, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not aware that he was made an accused in the BA 5265/08 -3- crime. He was very much available at his house and he is running a hotel also. Petitioner is deliberately shown as absconding accused and he came to know about the pendency of the case recently, through the counsel. Petitioner is, therefore, apprehending arrest in a non bailable offence and hence he prays for anticipatory bail. 6. On hearing both sides, it is clear, as conceded by learned Public Prosecutor that though crime was registered on 4- 9-2002, the name of the petitioner was implicated only as per report dated 12-10-2007, which is filed after five years of the incident and one month prior to the filing of the charge sheet. It is also conceded that the only witness who referred to the petitioner at the scene was not cited as a witness. As per the records submitted before the trial court, none of the witnesses incriminated petitioner. In the above circumstances, I find it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the following order is passed:- Petitioner shall surrender before the committal court within seven days from today and and if any bail application is filed, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. BA 5265/08 -4- 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on condition that he will not commit any offence while on bail. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.