IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 772 of 2010 C.R.NO.33 OF 2009 OF AMARAVILA EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ------------------------------------------- ANEESH, S/O. BAHULEYAN, AGED 27 YEARS, ANEESH BHAVAN, EZHUKONE.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, AMARAVILA EXCISE RANGE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 772 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th 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.4 in C.R.No.33 of 2009 of Amaravila Excise Range, Kollam District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2.6.2009, a quantity of 825 litres of spirit was transported by accused Nos.1 and 2 in a Qualis car which was taken on rent by accused No.4. It is also alleged that accused Nos.3 and 4 were piloting the vehicle transporting spirit. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed that the spirit was entrusted by accused Nos.3 and 4. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Qualis car was taken from a person who was running a 'rent a car' business. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is B.A. NO. 772 OF 2010 :: 2 :: a case of clear mistaken identity. He relies on Annexure A and says that accused No.4 therein is shown as Aneesh S/o.Vijayan, whereas the petitioner is Aneesh S/o.Bahuleyan. He produced Annexure B driving licence to show that the petitioner is Aneesh S/o.Bahuleyan. In answer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the fact that father's name of accused No.4 was mistakenly stated was disclosed later and that there is clear evidence to show that accused No.4 is Aneesh S/o.Bahuleyan and none else. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 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 ahz/