IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 200 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.787 OF 2008 OF KONNI POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SATHYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUCHERUKKAN, KAVUMMURIYIL HOUSE, KALANJOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR. BY ADV. MR.M.T.SURESHKUMAR MR.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 200 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found engaged in distilling of arrack in a forest and on seeing the police, he ran away abandoning the articles. Samples of wash were seized. 2150 litres of wash were found at the spot. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot. As per the allegations, a person ran away and the police alleged that it is the petitioner. Petitioner is innocent and he is not involved in any offence. He is actively taking part in a strike and hence, it is implicated in the case. Annexure-3 is the list of property, which shows that only three bottles of wash were seized, even though huge quantity is allegedly seen in the place of occurrence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the entire details of petitioner were shown in BA.200/09 2 the mahazar and the documents prepared at the spot. Petitioner was identified properly and it is not correct to say that he is falsely implicated. Regarding Annexure-3, it is submitted that only 3 samples were taken in bottles, since the quantity is huge, which could not be seized and produced in court. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 14.12.2008 and petitioner is required for investigation. (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.