IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2008() ----------------------------- PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ MADHU, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MANU BHAVANAM, MARUTHOORKULANGARA THEKKUMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4532 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was engaged in sale of Indian made foreign liquor and on seeing the Excise officials, he left the article and escaped. The article was found to be 800 ml. of Indian made foreign liquor. The incident occurred on 15.1.2008 and he could not be arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. Somebody has thrown away the article to his property and when the Excise officials enquired about said the person who ran away, he could not give the details. Hence, he was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even possession of excessive quantity will not amount to Section 55(a) of Abkari Act, as held in Sabu vs. State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 173) and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. Ba No.4532/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the offence involved is not under Section 55(a), but it is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act and hence, Sabu vs. State of Kerala is not applicable to the facts of this case. I am satisfied of the submissions made. The petitioner also could not substantiate his innocence. In the above circumstances, even bail cannot be granted in view of Section 41A of the Abkari Act. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl