IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 297 of 2009() ---------------------------- CP.no.36/06 in crime no.85/06 of Judicial Ist Class Magistrate-II, Haripad PETITIONER/ 5TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- SALU CHACKO,AGED 38,S/O K.C.CHACKO, KILIANKUNNEL, THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR,REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 3. PRINCIPAL,STATE EXCISE ACADEMY AND RESEARCH CENTRE,POONTHOLE, THRISSUR,REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 297 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 3 were found handling spirit by Excise officials and accused 1 and 2 were arrested from the spot. Third accused escaped and later he was arrested. On investigation it is revealed that accused 4 and 5 supplied this spirit and petitioner is fifth accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. The prosecution case is that certain phone calls were made to fifth accused by third accused, but the said mobile phone does not even belong to fifth accused. There is no other evidence against him and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence to show that accused 4 and 5 are the persons who had supplied the spirit to accused 1 to 3. They had brought this spirit to BA.297/09 2 Kariyilakkulangara and from there to the place from where the crime was detected. Fifth accused is to be interrogated. Granting of anticipatory bail will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that in an attempt to arrest third accused, the Excise official was brutally attacked and the incident occurred in 2006 and the said official is even now bed ridden and he has lost his memory for ever. It is also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that a petition for further investigation is filed and the fifth accused is not so far arrested and he is required for the purpose of investigation. The charge sheet as against accused 1 to 5 is laid showing the fifth accused as absconding. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made and the nature of involvement of the petitioner in the offence, I am satisfied that this is a case where petitioner will be required for custodial interrogation for an effective further investigation. It is not proper to grant anticipatory bail in this case. The crime is registered as early as in 2006 and petitioner has not so far surrendered before the BA.297/09 3 Excise officials or the Magistrate Court concerned and the investigation is in a stand still. (1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, respondent is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.