IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2074 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 212/07 OF ERUMELY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------- AJI KUMAR R.,S/O.RAGHAVAN,GEETHA BHAVANAM, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE ADOOR ,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERUMELY POLICE STATION 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N. SUKUMARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2074 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 4th accused. Altogether there are four accused persons arrayed as accused now. Investigation is in progress. There is immediate prospect of arraying more accused. 2. The crux of the allegations is that 3775 litres of spirit were transported into Kerala from Tamil Nady by accused 1 and 2, who were the crew of a vehicle, which was intercepted by the police. Crime was registered. Interrogation of accused 1 and 2 and the investigation conducted led the police to the third accused. Detailed statement of the third accused was recorded. Such statement revealed the contumacious and culpable conduct of the petitioner herein and the third accused in the alleged transportation of spirit which was detected on 4.10.2007. Later the petitioner was arrested on 9.3.2008. At the time when the petitioner was arrested, he had in his possession a slip which B.A.No. 2074 of 2008 2 allegedly contains information about the transactions between the petitioner and the third accused as also the principals of the third accused, who were engaged in the contumacious activity of illicit import of spirit into Kerala. The petitioner continues in custody from 9.3.2008. Investigation is not complete. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. There is no tangible legally sustainable materials to justify any indictment against the petitioner now. The learned counsel submits that at worst the materials relied on by the police now are the confession statements of accused 3 and 4 and a slip of paper which was allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner at the time of his arrest. That slip, according to the police, allegedly contains an account of the ongoing transaction in spirit between the accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at any rate the petitioner does not deserve to be detained in custody any longer on such inadequate and unsatisfactory allegations. 5. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available indications clearly lead to the culpability of the petitioner. At the moment the question is not whether there is B.A.No. 2074 of 2008 3 sufficient materials to justify a verdict of guilty and conviction. The available materials clearly point to the involvement of the petitioner in the organised activity of illicit import of spirit into Kerala. The confession statements of accused 3 and 4 as also the slip recovered from the possession of the petitioner do go a long way to assure the Investigating Officer of the justifiability of the allegations against the petitioner. The court may not now embark on a detailed consideration as to whether all the pieces of materials collected would be admissible in evidence or whether those materials, if admitted in evidence, would be acceptable and would be sufficient to justify a conviction, submits learned P.P. 6. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The case diary has been placed before me at my request. I have gone through the materials available against the petitioner, to which I have made brief reference. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that consideration of the entire materials clearly point to the conclusion that the opposition of the learned Prosecutor is justified. B.A.No. 2074 of 2008 4 7. I cannot also lose sight of the mandate of Section 41A of the Kerala Abkari Act, which stipulates that in the event of opposition by the learned Prosecutor, regular bail can be granted only if this court is in a position to entertain both the satisfactions contemplated under Section 41A of the Kerala Abkari Act. On the available inputs, I am unable to entertain either of those satisfactions. The conclusion, in these circumstances, is inevitable that the petitioner is not entitled for regular bail now. 5. This application is, in these circumstance, dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation, not at any rate, prior to 21.4.2008. The Investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge tm