IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3283 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 78/2009 OF AMARAVILA EXCISE RANGE .............................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 : ------------------------------------ JOHNY @ JOHNYCHAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. ZACHARIAH (LATE), PADINJAREKALAM HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY.P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERAELA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3283 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, on 12.12.2009 at about 7.30 P.M., a vehicle was intercepted and 6666 litres of spirit were seized from the vehicle. The driver (A2) ran away and cleaner(A1) was arrested from the spot. On questioning him, it was revealed that it was at the instance of third and fourth accused that spirit was transported. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has absolutely no connection with first accused, except for the fact that he had once upon a time worked with him as his driver. It is also submitted that petitioner is not engaged in any abkari business and he is a farmer and he is doing business in Tamil Nadu. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, it is submitted. 4. It is also submitted by petitioner's counsel that as per the prosecution, petitioner had a role in the offence and he was using a particular mobile phone, which issued to one Antony Albert, Coimbatore. Petitioner has nothing to do with the mobile or the said Antony. Only on suspicion that petitioner is implicated in the offence. B.A. No. 3283 / 2010 2 If the petitioner is arrested, he will suffer irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the previous application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, since it was submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the call details revealed that first and second accused had constant contact over phone with petitioner. Therefore, all the call details of the petitioner's phone are taken and produced before this court. Those will show that petitioner had not called the co-accused over his phone and he had no contact with them. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is the second application for anticipatory bail. After considering the contentions raised, this court had directed petitioner to appear before the investigating officer, without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. The order was passed as early as on 20.05.2010. Till now, petitioner has not surrendered either before the court or before the investigating officer. Instead, he filed a second application for anticipatory bail. 6. It is also pointed out that as per the written instructions given by Assistant Excise Commissioner, there is every reason to believe that petitioner is involved in the crime and he has also stated the reason for implicating petitioner in the written report submitted in this case. The petitioner was not using his own phone, but mobile phone in the name of B.A. No. 3283 / 2010 3 Antony Albert, Coimbatore was being used by petitioner, it is submitted. The criminals normally do not use their own mobiles but they procure SIM card fraudulently and use such card. 7. On hearing both sides and on considering the various facts submitted and taking into consideration, the facts stated in the report submitted by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, I am satisfied that petitioner's custodial interrogation will be necessary to elucidate more details about the involvement of accused in the case. According to the investigating officer, there is every reason to believe the statement of the first accused, who implicated the petitioner with the crime. Considering all the above facts and the serious nature of the offence involved, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and petitioner is bound to surrender. Hence the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. 2. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln