IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6990 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.45/2011 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALUVA APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- SULFIKKAR, S/O.NOUSHAD, AMBALATH HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, ALUVA EXCISE RANGE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOWHAD THOTTATHIL THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 6990 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.45/2011 of Aluva Excise Range Office for offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Apprehending arrest, detention and torture at the hands of the Investigating officer, this petition is filed seeking an order directing the respondent to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest with a plea that he is innocent of the allegations. 2. Having heard either side and perusing the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle from which 7260 litres of spirit was seized by the investigating officer. The plea of the petitioner is that he had transferred the vehicle much before the seizure of the contraband articles. But it is admitted that the sale of the vehicle was not informed to the authorities and therefore, legally the sale has not taken effect. The learned Government Pleader further B.A. No. 6990 of 2011 2 submitted that the petitioner is involved in 3 identical crimes and therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. In the above circumstances, especially having due regard to the bad antecedent, I find that this is not a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, this petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer, who, after interrogation, shall produce the petitioner before the Magistrate concerned so as to enable the petitioner to apply for bail, which the learned Magistrate shall dispose at the earliest. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Scl.