IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4535 of 2009() ------------------------------------ C.R. NO.112/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM. PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ ASHOKAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KARUTHARAMANNEL, PRAYAR THEKKUM MURI, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT : ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.4535 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of August, 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 the 3rd accused in C.R. No. 112/2009 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(1) &(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. On 8/07/2009, the Excise Party intercepted an Autorikshaw. A quantity of 200 litres of arrack was found in the Autorikshaw. The second accused was arrested on the spot. Two persons, who were travelling in the Autorikshaw ran away on seeing the Excise Party. The second accused stated that accused Nos.1 and 3 are the persons who ran away from the Autorikshaw. Later, a search was conducted in the house of the first accused. 50 litres of arrack, 110 litres of Wash and utensils and implements for distilling arrack were seized from the house of the first accused. The petitioner, who is the third accused apprehends arrest. B.A. No.4535 /2009 Page numbers 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence and the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even in the Mahzar, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as the person who ran away from the Authorikshaw. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in other abkari offences. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm