IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4904 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.71/01 OF NEDUMANGAD EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:- ------------------------------------------- G.SUNIL, S/O GANGADHARAN, THARAVADU, KODUNGANOOR, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4904 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a), 65 and 67 of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner is the R.C owner of the vehicle, in which toddy was illegally transported. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was implicated as accused No.5 in the crime and at the time of offence, the petitioner was not in possession of the vehicle. As per the registration certificate, the petitioner was the R.C owner. Changes were not effected to the details in the registration certificate, consequent to the sale and hence, the petitioner was implicated in the offence. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the charge sheet has already been laid as early as in 2004. The petitioner is the R.C owner as admitted by the petitioner himself. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that many things would have transpired after the submission of the charge sheet. The petitioner BA.4904/08 2 would have been shown as an absconding accused. The present stage of the case is not known. The petitioner is also not able to mention the stage of the case, if any, pending against him. In the above circumstances, it is not fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail in the absence of placing the relevant details before this Court. Hence, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.