IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3314 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CR NO.93/2009 OF KONNY EXCISE RANGE OF JFCM-II, PATHANAMTHITTA) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- HARI KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, CHEMMANI PUTHEN VEETTIL, CHEMMANI KARAYIL, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3314 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 12/11/2009, the excise officials seized 1460 litres of wash from the side of a river and a case was registered. On investigation, it is revealed that the article belongs to petitioner and he was in possession of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is not even residing near the place of occurrence. Article is seized from an open place which is accessible to other persons. Excise officials has no case that petitioner found in possession of the article seized, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the article was seized from the side of river. But, as per the investigation so far conducted, the article belongs to petitioner and he was in possession of the same. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that though certain facts are stated on behalf of petitioner's counsel, those are not sufficient to B.A No.3314 OF 2010 2 hold at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty on the basis of the evidence so far collected. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv