IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5949 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.194/2007 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ ANILKUMAR A., S/O.SRI.APPU, KALIYIKKAL ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VITHURA P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5949 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(g) and (h) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 18.7.2008, four persons were found engaged in manufacture of liquor. They ran away, on seeing the police. 200 litres of wash and 5 litres of arrack were seized from the spot. Petitioner is A1 in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is a false case foisted against petitioner because of previous enmity of Vithura Police against petitioner. There was an attempt to implicate petitioner falsely in a crime under the Abkari Act in the year 2001. The police came to the house of petitioner and physically manhandled his wife when the petitioner was not available in the house on making enquiries about petitioner. This was on 11.2.2001. A private complaint was filed by petitioner's wife against the police officials in the year 2001 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No. 547 of 2004. It is pending before the Magistrate Court. While so, another crime was also registered against the petitioner and others including offence under [B.A.No.5949/08] 2 Section 332 IPC. This was in the year 2001 itself. In both the cases, petitioner was acquitted recently. 4. According to learned counsel for petitioner, after petitioner was acquitted in those two cases, petitioner was pressurised to withdraw the complaint filed by petitioner's wife against the police officials. But petitioner was not amenable to this request. Therefore, another attempt is now made to implicate the petitioner falsely in an offence under the Abkari Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner is residing in a locality where illicit liquor business is carried on and Excise officials are vigilant also. But no case is registered against petitioner so far by Excise official. This itself is an indication that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made and he has nothing to do with liquor. He is only a victim of Vithura Police, who has an axe to grind against the petitioner because of the compliant filed by his wife. If the petitioner is arrested, it is likely that he will be tortured at the police station and hence he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that a crime under the Abkari Act was registered as early as in 2001 and in the same year another crime under section 332 IPC etc. was also registered against petitioner. But, thereafter no case is registered against petitioner for commission of any offence. If the police [B.A.No.5949/08] 3 had any intention to harass petitioner and falsely implicate in any crimes, it is unlikely that all these years petitioner will not be implicated in any offence. Petitioner was actually found engaged in manufacture of liquor and he escaped from the scene and his name was mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. If the case of the accused is accepted, the police will be having whole details with them and those details relating to petitioner, but FIR contains only his name. The omission to mention the details itself would indicate that there is no attempt for false implication, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, it is clear that no crime is registered against the petitioner for offence under the Abkari Act except in the year 2001 and in 2007. The crimes are registered only by the Vithura Police against whom a private complaint was filed by petitioner's wife. No Excise official has registered any case against petitioner. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that if the petitioner is arrested it is likely that he will be harassed by the police and in such circumstances, I think it fit to grant anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be [B.A.No.5949/08] 4 released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25.000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.