IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6099 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.30/2008 OF FEROKE EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MOHANAN, S/O.RARUKUTTY, MAKKINIYATMEETHAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKATTTOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6099 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(g) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 20 litres of wash were seized from a shed which is attached to the house of the petitioner. It was seized by the Excise Officials on 9.9.2008 and a case was registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has nothing to do with the shed from where the article is seized. Petitioner was not present at the scene when the seizure was effected and he was implicated on wrong basis, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the shed is adjacent to a road. Any person can access to the shed, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that on enquiries made at the scene by the Excise Officials, it is revealed that the shed from where the article is seized belongs to the petitioner. The investigation is carried on BA No.6099/08 2 into this fact and at this stage, if petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that, in the light of the objections raised, unless I can hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. There is denial from the petitioner's side and assertion from the side of the prosecution. Hence, it is not possible to hold at this stage that the shed does not belong to petitioner, especially since, there are statements of witnesses who speak that the shed belongs to petitioner. The matter requires investigation with the co-operation of the petitioner. Hence, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl