IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6043 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.152/2009 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI. PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SEBASTIAN @ JOY, S/O.THOMAS, KANNAMKULAM HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM, PEERMADE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6043 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 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 accused No.4 in Crime No.152/2009 of Peruvanthanam Police Station, Idukki. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a)(h) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that accused No.5 handed over 61 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor, each bottle containing 750 ml to accused No.3 at Mangalore. Accused No.3 took the same to Aluva in a Train. At Aluva, the contraband was handed over to accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.1 took the Indian made foreign liquor to Kottayam in a train. From Kottayam, the first accused travelled in a bus to Mundakayam. He got down at Mundakayam, hired an Autorikshaw driven by the second accused and met the 4th accused. The first accused handed over 30 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor to the 4th accused. B.A. No. 6043 /2009 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is also submitted that the confession statement, if any, made by other accused persons cannot be made a ground for implicating the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in progress and the investigating agency can take the confession statement as an aid for investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner, who is accused No.4 in the present case, is involved in two abkari cases registered by Peruvanthanam Police Station. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm