IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 481 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.1/2009 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:- ------------------------------ RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN AGED 45 YEARS, THEMATH HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KODUNGA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:- --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 481 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 1-1-2009 1st accused was found in possession of nine litres of artificial Indian Made Foreign Liquor. On investigation, it is revealed that it was given to the 1st accused by the 2nd accused. 62 bottles of contraband articles were seized from bushes, as per the information given by 2nd accused. According to 2nd accused, the contraband articles were given by 3rd accused. It is also revealed that petitioner who is the 3rd accused had kept 35 litres of spirit and 20 bottles of artificial Indian Made Foreign Liquor on the terrace of partly constructed house of one Antony . The 1st and 2nd accused were also arrested. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence. An attempt was made by the Sub Inspector of Police to implicate petitioner under the K.A.P. Act, but the proceedings were dropped by the District Collector. Hence, the Sub Inspector with a view to create false records, implicated the petitioner in this case. Petitioner met with an accident on 22-12-2008 and he was BA 481/2009 -2- admitted in the hospital, as evidenced by Annexure-A. On 1-1- 2009 he was in the hospital and he was discharged only on 3-1- 2009, as seen from Annexure-A. It is also seen from Annexure-A that on 26-12-2008 also petitioner was in the hospital, though the date of admission and discharge are shown as 22-12-2008 and 23-12-2008 in Annexure-A. Though petitioner was discharged from the Primary Health Centre on 23-12-2008, he was admitted in St. James Hospital on 26-12-2008, as per Annexure-A, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner has kept the contraband article in the terrace and he had supplied the same to the 2nd accused. The investigation is at the initial stage and petitioner is required for arrest and interrogation. The mere fact that petitioner met with an accident on 22-12-2008 will not absolve him from the liability of possession of contraband article which was seized only on 1-1-2009. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the rival contentions, at this stage it is not possible to conclude that petitioner had not kept the article, as alleged. The date on which the article is kept is to be ascertained and the prosecution does BA 481/2009 -3- not seem to have a case that it was kept on 1-1-2009. Considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.