IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7802 of 2009 CR.NO.36 OF 2009 OF BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------- RAJESH.P, S/O. KUMARAN, PANDARAVEEDU HOUSE, ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRUI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7802 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 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 accused in C.R.No.36 of 2009 of Badiadka Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.11.2009 at 5.45 PM, the petitioner was found in possession of five litres of arrack. On seeing the Excise party, he left the place. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not properly identified. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a student of B.A.(English) and it cannot be believed that he would indulge in such type of activities. It is also submitted that there is no criminal antecedents in so far as the petitioner is concerned. B.A. NO. 7802 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The question whether identity of the accused is fully established is a matter to be considered at the time of trial, after considering the evidence in the case. The offence alleged is a serious one. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/