IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1018 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.279/2010 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO. 40/2010 OF EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- GANGADHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, VALAYATTIL HOUSE, POOMALA KARA, VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT : ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. EXCCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE OFFICE, IDUKKI BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1018 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 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 Crime No. 40/2010 of Excise Office, Idukki. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 08.01.2010, on getting information that the petitioner was involved in the distillation of arrack, the excise party went to the house of the petitioner. The excise party saw the petitioner engaged in dealing with 30 litres of wash on the rear side of his house bearing No. VIII/349 of Velliyamattom Grama Panchayath. On seeing the excise party, the petitioner ran away. A mahazar was prepared and samples of the contraband were also taken. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the construction of the house was not completed and the petitioner was not residing in the house. It is also submitted that the identity of the petitioner is not established. B.A. No. 1018 /2010 2 5. I have gone through the Case Diary. 6. In the Bail Application, the address of the petitioner is shown as Valayattil House, Poomala Kara, Velliyamattom Village. The house referred to in the occurrence report is also in Poomala Kara. The number of the house is also shown. The petitioner has no case that he is residing in another house situated in Poomala Kara and that he owned two houses. No such case is put forward in the Bail Application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instruction on that aspect. The house in question has a number assigned by the Panchayath. The mahazar also shows that the house was being used at the relevant time for the residence of the petitioner, his wife and children. 7. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. The offence alleged in the case is serious in nature. I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln