IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6643 of 2009 EXCISE CRIME NO.15 OF 2009 OF EXCISE RANGE, THANKAMONY, IDUKKI. PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SHIBY.M.S,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.SANKU,MANJAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, 5TH MILE KARA, MUKKADAM.PO, KONNATHADI VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,(EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE,THANKAMANY) REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6643 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 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 second accused in Crime No.15 of 2009 of Thankamony Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in his tea shop. The Indian Made Foreign Liquor was being stored in the house of the first accused. The first accused was being paid Rs.1,000/- per month by the second accused for the service rendered by him. Prima facie, the complicity of accused Nos.1 and 2 is shown to be established by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence. Prima facie, at this stage, I am not inclined to accept that contention. The B.A. NO. 6643 OF 2009 :: 2 :: facts are to be proved and the guilt or otherwise of the accused is to be established at the time of trial. At this stage, a meticulous analysis of the facts and evidence cannot be made. 5. 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. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/