IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 2380 of 2011() ----------------------------- CP.16/2011 of J.M.F.C.-III,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO.81/2010 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------- SUGATHAN, S/O.MRITYUNJAYA PANICKER, ALUVILA VEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANNOOR DESOM, VENGANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.2380 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 ORDER In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.81 of 2010 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range for an offence punishable under Section 8 (1) & 8(2) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 1.5 litres of arrack, seeks his enlargement on bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner is involved in four other abkari offences and that in this case the final report has been filed on 18/02/2011. 3. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Moreover, I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under Section 41A (b)(ii) of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify his release on bail. With the above observation this Application is dismissed. Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. skj