IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6931 of 2008() ----------------------------- C.R.No.102/08 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER ------------------- THAMPI, S/O. CHACKO CHACKO, KARAYAKKALLIL HOUSE, KOLADATHUSSERRYMURI,THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6931 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found carrying 7 litres of spirit and on seeing the officials, he abandoned the articles and escaped. The incident occurred on 27.10.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. On the date of the incident occurred, he was seriously ill and he was taking rest, as evidenced by Annexure-I, which shows that he was advised to take rest from 15.9.2008 to 29.10.2008. It is also pointed out that the mahazar will not show who had given information regarding the petitioner. Except a bare allegation that petitioner was the person, who ran away, no details are available. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor BA.6931/08 2 submitted that petitioner was identified from the spot by the people of the locality and on enquiries made, they have even given detailed address of petitioner. Those are incorporated in the mahazar itself. The statement of the witnesses are recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C which show that petitioner is involved in the offence. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere omission of the details of the persons who identified the accused in the mahazar will not be much consequence, since those persons were questioned by the investigating officer. The incident occurred on 27.10.2008 and petitioner has not surrendered before the court or before the investigating officer so far. 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. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.