IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2627 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.303/2010 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/A7 & A8. ---------------------------------------- 1. P.A.VIJAYAN, AGED 48, S/O. AYYAPPAN, KUTTIPALACKAL HOUSE, MUTHALAKKODAM, THODUPUZHA. 2. K.G.HARI, AGED 64, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, KANNOLIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE (CRIME 303/10) THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 2722 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. Nos. 2627 & 2722 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 12th day of July, 2010. ORDER These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 5(a) of Kerala Rationing Order r/w Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. According to prosecution, the first accused was found transporting 100 bags of rice, which was intended for distribution through ration shop. The first accused was arrested and questioned. It was revealed that he was transporting the article as directed by second and third accused. Accused nos. 4 and 6 are the Head Load workers who loaded the articles into the lorry from the premises of the depot run by 8th accused, who is a wholesale dealer. Seventh accused is the accountant who was managing the affairs of the depot and it was as directed by 7th accused that the articles were loaded in the vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for accused nos. 7 and 8 submitted that they are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The 7th accused is only an accountant working in the shop of 8th accused, who is a wholesale dealer. Both of them have not committed any offence. A verification of the stock was done by the Taluk supply Officer and it was found that the details in the stock register tallied with the register maintained in the shop (vide Annexure A1) and hence, petitioners have nothing to do [B.A.Nos.2627 & 2722/2010] 2 with the articles seized, it is submitted. Petitioner's counsel also submitted that Annexure-I certificate was issued, when an application was made under the Right to Information Act and that was why the certificate was issued at a belated stage. 4. Learned counsel for accused nos. 2 and 3 argued that they have nothing to do with the offence. Though they are implicated, no evidence has so far been collected to show that they have any role in the offence. 5. These petitions are opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the names of accused nos. 2 and 3 are mentioned in the F.I. Statement itself. It is at their instance that the ration articles were transported by first accused. On investigation, it is further revealed that from the business premises of 8th accused, under the instructions of 7th accused the ration articles were being transported. 6. It is also pointed out that the police wanted the accused to produce the stock register to be produced. But, accused nos. 7 and 8 failed to produce the same. On the next day also, a request was made to produce the stock register, but it was not produced by accused. The Taluk Supply Officer has given a statement to that effect before the police. He has also given a statement in writing. The Taluk Supply Officer has also passed an order stating that there was violation of relevant provisions etc., it is pointed out. 7. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public prosecutor. Prima facie, it appears that serious allegations [B.A.Nos.2627 & 2722/2010] 3 are made against all the petitioners, as submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. Even though Annexure-I is produced, I find that the said document is dated 9.4.2010 whereas the incident happened as early as on 19.3.2010. Petitions are dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.