IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4935 of 2009() ----------------------------- C.R.NO.101/2008 OF KARUNAGAPPALY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- PRASANNA, D/O.LEKSHMIKUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS, KANJIRAVILA VEEDU, PAVUMBA THEKKUMMURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4935 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.R.No.101 of 2008 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 29.6.2008, a quantity of 65 litres of wash was seized from the residential property of the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of the wash. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is not shown that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the property. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also on perusal BA No.4935/2009 2 of the case diary, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved in the offence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl