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. 647 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRMP.3681/2009 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA C.R.NO. 34/2009 OF UDUMBANCHOLA EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ---------------------------------- SHAJIMON THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, NADUTHOTTIYIL POONJAR, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CR.NO. 34/2009 OF UDUMBANCHOLA POLICE STATION) IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND 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. 647 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 accused No.2 in C.R. No.34/2009 of Udumbanchola Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22.04.2009, the lorry bearing registration No. KL 02 M 6448 owned by the petitioner herein was intercepted by the excise officials and it was found that a quantity of 1664 litres of spirit was kept concealed in 52 jars underneath mango fruits. The first accused is the brother-in- law of the petitioner. It is also alleged that accused No.3 was also along with accused No.1. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The allegation is that large quantity of spirit was illegally transported. In a case of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to the admitted owner of the lorry. The B.A. No. 647/ 2010 2 petitioner has relied on Annexure-1 Medical Certificate. I have gone through the Medical Certificate. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any discretionary relief on account of the reasons stated in Annexure-1. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in 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 ln