IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4889 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.18/2010 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ MADHUVARAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, MANU BHAVANAM, MARATHOORKULANGARA MURI, KARUNGAPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSPECTOR KARUNAGAPALLY EXCISE RANGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4889 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th August, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 10.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were found concealed in a puramboke land, situated on the western side of the property of one Anilkumar on 1.2.2010 and Excise officials seized the same. On enquiry made, it is revealed that petitioner had concealed the same and hence, a case was registered against petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband article seized. It was found in an abandoned state. Petitioner is residing far away from the place of occurrence. Nobody has a case that he had seen the petitioner running away from the place of occurrence. According to him, no prudent man will keep “finished product” in a hidden condition. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials in the case diary to reveal that BA NO.4889/10 2 petitioner had kept the article at the place of occurrence. Witnesses are questioned and the petitioner's involvement is clearly established. Petitioner is involved in three more cases of similar nature. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. In a case involving offences under the Abkari Act, unless the twin conditions under Section 41A are established, even regular bail cannot be granted. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs