IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 547 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- (CR.NO.71 OF 2008 OF WADAKKANCHERY EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ KUTTAN @ SOMASUNDARAN, S/O.KIZHAKKEKKARA VASU, KUMBALANGADU, KANJIRAKKODE P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, WADAKKANCHERY RANGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 547 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 were found transporting 5 litres and 3 litres of arrack respectively and first accused was arrested from the spot on 22.12.2008. Second accused abandoned the article and ran away. 3. Petitioner is the second accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a tapper and he is falsely implicated in the case. One Divakaran, who is engaged in illicit arrack business is on inimical terms with petitioner, since he had given information to the excise officials regarding the illicit activities and therefore, petitioner has been falsely implicated. Annexure-A is a copy of the complaint given by petitioner's mother to the Superintendent of Police, alleging that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA.547/09 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was identified by the Excise officials and his name and other details find a place in the occurrence report, mahazar etc. from the spot itself. Petitioner's details were ascertained and confirmed. First accused was arrested from the spot and from him also petitioner's details were ascertained. It is not correct to say that it is a false case and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. In a case of this nature, on the bare assertion, the innocence cannot be concluded. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 22.12.2008 and petitioner is required for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. BA.547/09 3 (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since this Court has already ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and hence, any order passed to the contrary in any subsequent application for anticipatory bail may amount to review, which is not permissible in law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.