IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3663 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- EXCISE C.R. NO.26/2010 OF KONNI EXCISE RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ....... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- MURUKESAN, AGED 35,S/O.THANKKAYYA, LAYAM NO.90, VATTATHARA DIVISION NO.1, KUMBAZHA ESTATE,MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KONNI EXCISE RANGE 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3663 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 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, on 07.04.2010 at about 11.10 A.M., while the excise party was on patrol duty, got information that wash was kept in under a culvert, the excise party went to the place of occurrence and found that 140 litres of wash were kept underneath of culvert. The prosecution case is that petitioner kept the contraband articles and hence, a case was registered against petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the crime. There is nothing to show that petitioner had kept the articles at the place and nothing is stated in the documents prepared by the officials that petitioner is involved in this crime. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this Bail Application and submitted that it is not correct to say that the documents do not reveal the details of petitioner or his involvement. It is B.A. No. 3663 / 2010 2 specifically stated in the mahazar itself that petitioner had kept the articles in the place of occurrence. All the details including the name, age and number of the house of petitioner etc. are all mentioned in the mahazar itself. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, taking into account the serious nature of the allegations made. In a case of this nature, unless petitioner's innocence can be probabilised, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained by this court in this crime hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln