IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6268 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.135 of 2011 of Sastham Cottah Excise Range, Kollam District. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------- PREMLAL @ PREMAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN, MOOLATHARA THEKKETHIL (H), AITHOTUVA MURI, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6268 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.135 of 2011 of Sastham Cottah Excise Range, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. The allegation against the accused is that on 20/06/2011 he was found transporting 40 litres of illicit coloured liquor. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the crime. When the bail application came up for hearing on 16th August, 2011, the following order was passed:- “The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's parents are regularly engaged in the anti-liquor campaign and that the petitioner has been implicated in the case at the instance of some interested persons. It is also stated that the petitioner is not able to manage his own affairs. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor will get instructions in the matter. Post on 20/08/2011.” Bail Appln.No.6268/2011 : 2 : 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on written instructions submitted that the petitioner is a footballer, a person engaged in the sand mining activities and also in boat race. It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner is involved in C.R.No.65 of 2011 of the same Excise Range and in that case final report was also filed. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj