IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3710 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CMP.4015/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOTTARAKKARA ........................................ (CRIME NO.24/2010 OF EZHUKONE EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM) ......................................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- BAIJU,S/O.RATNAKARAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MURUNTHAL CHERI, THARIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.\ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SOU. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3710 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 55(a) and (i) and 67B of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 17.4.2010 at about 8 pm, excise party found a lorry parked in the property of the first accused and 1350 liters of spirit were seized from the lorry. Investigation revealed that petitioner was the owner of the lorry at the relevant time and hence he was implicated as second accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that RC owner of the vehicle is somebody else. Petitioner is stated to be the person in possession of the vehicle by virtue of an agreement which is allegedly executed only on the previous day of the seizure. According to petitioner, first accused has concocted an agreement and petitioner is absolutely innocent. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that there are witnesses to the agreement and investigation was conducted and B.A. No.3710/10 2 it is disclosed that petitioner was in possession of the vehicle on the date of occurrence and this petition is opposed. Petitioner is also involved in two other cases of similar nature, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the various facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage. Petitioner has not made out any exceptional circumstances to grant bail. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.