IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5933 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR.NO.25/2007 OF MALLAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- SANOSH, S/O.SADANANDHAN, MULAKKAL HOUSE, EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, MALLAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5933 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 55(a) and 67 (b) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution ten litres of spirit was transported by 1st accused in a vehicle and the vehicle belongs to petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. The registration certificate stands in the name of one Dileep Kumar, but petitioner is implicated only because he is running a toddy shop. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the vehicle was released to the 1st accused in the confiscation proceedings. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is revealed in the investigation that petitioner was in possession of the vehicle at the time of occurrence. The vehicle was transferred from hand to hand and the R.C. owner has nothing to do with the vehicle, at the time of occurrence. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that as per the evidence, petitioner is in possession of the vehicle at the time of occurrence. Even according to petitioner, R.C. owner is not the 1st accused, therefore, it is not clear under what circumstances the BA 5933/08 -2- vehicle was released to the 1st accused. But, it may not be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, since there is evidence and materials in the case to implicate him with the crime. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that charge is already laid and the case would have been taken on file. Petitioner could not be arrested during the investigation. The mere fact that the vehicle was released to 1st accused by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, since according to his own submission the 1st accused has nothing to do with the vehicle and he is not the R.C. owner. There is only an assertion that vehicle was released to first accused but no materials are before this Court to see under what circumstances the vehicle was released to the 1st accused. 7. Petitioner shall surrender before the committal court within seven days from today. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.