IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6488 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.547/08 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ BALAN, S/O. CHEKKOOTTI, AGED 50 YEARS, CHAROTH HOUSE, EKAROOL (P.O) UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON 09/12/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6488 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 3 and 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act. According to prosecution, first accused sold 30 litres of kerosene to second accused and the latter was found transporting the same in a can. On seeing the police, he abandoned the article and ran away and it was seized. On investigation, it is revealed that the article was sold by petitioner to second accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no offence is committed by petitioner. Petitioner is having licence to sell kerosene. Violation of Rule 16 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order can only lead to cancellation of licence issued to petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner cannot be connected to the article seized. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the provision referred to as per the records is Rule 16 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, but, as per the investigation, it is revealed that 30 BA.6488/08 2 litres of kerosene was sold by petitioner to second accused and hence he has acted in violation of Rule 14A of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order. It is also submitted that there are several witnesses, who had witnessed the incident and seen the article being transported from petitioner's shop by second accused. Second accused was granted bail, but on registration of the crime, petitioner's shop was sealed and on investigation, it was found that 200 litres of kerosene was available in the shop. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on consideration of the rival contentions, I find that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Any mistake in the Section quoted may not a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. 6. The crime was registered as early as on 5.9.2008 and petitioner was not available for arrest. Petitioner is, therefore, directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceeding in accordance with law. With this observation, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.