IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6463 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.59/2006 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- --------------------------------------- ASHOK KUMAR, S/O LATE PADMANABHA, 'NIDUMADI', KODIBAIL, UPPALA VILLAGE, UPPALA, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6463 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, an autorickshaw driven by A1 was intercepted and petitioner who is the second accused was sitting in the back seat with 3000 packets of arrack containing total quantity of 300 litres. Petitioner ran away and hence, he could not be arrested. The incident occurred on 16.2.2006. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He was not even aware that he was implicated in the offence. Petitioner has no connection with the arrack seized, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals that petitioner is involved in the crime. Both accused ran away from the spot and on questioning the independent witnesses, it is revealed that petitioner was sitting in the autorickshaw. The autorickshaw BA No.6463/08 2 belong to A1. It is also submitted that though the incident happened on 16.2.2006, petitioner was not available for arrest in spite of expiry of more than 2½ years. The investigation could not be completed because of his non co-operation with the investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not pointed out any circumstances or materials which will indicate his innocence. The mere assertion or denial may not be sufficient to establish innocence. The incident occurred as early as on 16.2.2006 and petitioner is required for interrogation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation within seven days from today. Whether he is arrested or not, police will be at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl