IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6270 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.4143/2008 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO.663/07 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/16TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- P.A. ELAVARASHU, S/O. LATE ANPARASU, AGED 30 YEARS, SRESOLIYAMMAN NAGAR, VAYYAPURI NAGAR P.O., KAROOR-2,TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.THAMPI(SR.) SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD RURAL, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6270 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Sections 8(2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, a lorry with 8380 litres of spirit was seized by the AMVI at Kayamkulam. Driver of the vehicle ran away and nobody could be arrested from the spot. Thereafter, on investigation, it is revealed that several persons are involved in the offence including the petitioner, who is the 16th accused. As per the allegations, 16th accused is the person, who along with 11th accused, arranged the spirit for transportation. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The crime was detected on 19.9.2007 and the petitioner's arrest was recorded only after one year on 6.9.2008. The petitioner was arrested in connection with another crime on 9.8.2008 and he made a confession regarding his involvement in this case also and hence, the investigating officer ought to have taken steps to arrest him in August, 2008 itself. If that be so, the statutory period would be over and the petitioner would be entitled for statutory bail, by virtue of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, it is submitted. But, the BA.6270/08 2 investigator has deliberately delayed recording of arrest of the petitioner till 6.9.2008, with a view to see that the petitioner is in custody for more period. It is also submitted that other accused in this crime are granted regular bail by the Sessions Court and hence, petitioner may also be granted bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this bail application. It was pointed out that a lorry with a huge quantity of spirit was detected and the investigation took some time to detect the involvement of several persons including the petitioner, since no person could be arrested from spot. It was only when 11th accused was arrested on 19.8.2008 that it was revealed that the petitioner is also involved in the crime and hence, all steps were taken to record petitioner's arrest and it was recorded within a short time, on 6.9.2008. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is involved in another crime, in which twenty litres of spirit were seized from his godown. The petitioner is a habitual offender in cases like this and in case the petitioner is granted bail, he is likely to abscond. and bail was granted to co-accused only after completion of statutory period, it is submitted, but in this case statutory period is not over. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the arrest was recorded only on 6.9.2008 and the petitioner's involvement was detected only on 19.8.2008. The statutory period can be reckoned BA.6270/08 3 only from the date of arrest, as it is well settled. Co-accused were granted bail only after expiry of the statutory period. The case is still under investigation. As per the materials available in the case diary, the petitioner has clear role in the offence. If the petitioner is to be granted bail, petitioner's innocence is to be established, in the light of the objection raised. From the submissions made, I am not satisfied of the innocence of the petitioner. I am also not satisfied that the petitioner may not repeat the offence. In such circumstances, in view of Section 41A of the Abkari Act, bail cannot be granted. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.