IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3972 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.18/2009 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- PAVITHRAN S/O.V.P.GOVINDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, SANTHOSH VILLA, AZHIYOOR P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. P. RAVEEENDRABABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------- B.A. No.3972 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Thalassery Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 15/01/2009, an Autorikshaw bearing registration No. KL-11/B-4269 met with an accident while a car hit the Autorikshaw. After the accident, the driver of the Autorikshaw ran away. The Policeman on duty in the Mahe Aid Post informed the Sub Inspector of Police over phone about the incident and the Police party rushed into the spot. The police party found several bottles of Indian made foreign liquor in the Goods-authorikshaw. A crime was registered. Mahzar was prepared. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was driving the Goods-autorikshaw at the relevant time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence. The B.A. No.3972/ 2009 Page numbers petitioner does not dispute the ownership of the Autorikshaw. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this by itself is not a sufficient ground for implicating the petitioner in the offence. 5. I have gone through the Case Diary and heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm