High Court Kerala High Court

Bijesh vs The State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Bijesh vs The State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5440 of 2008()


1. BIJESH, S/O. VELAYUDHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :03/09/2008

 O R D E R
                               K. HEMA, J.
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        B.A.No. 5440 of 2008
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 3rd day of September,2008

                                  O R D E R

Application for bail.

2. The alleged offence is under section 55(a) of the Abkari

Act. Petitioner is the 5th accused. Accused 2 to 7 decided to

transport huge quantity of spirit (4,130 litres) from Tamilnadu to

Kerala and accused No.1, lorry driver, was entrusted with the job.

The spirit was being transported while the lorry wass intercepted

and 118 cans having a capacity of 35 litres each of spirit were

seized from the lorry. Accused 3 to 6 were travelling in a Maruthi

car which was piloting the lorry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

petitioner is absolutely innocent and petitioner was not piloting

the vehicle. According to prosecution, petitioner was only piloting

the vehicle and he was taking money for piloting, but he has no

other connection with the transportation of the contraband article.

Petitioner is in custody from 10-8-2008 onwards. There is no

necessity for further detention of the petitioner. It will not help the

investigation in any manner, it is submitted.

BA 5440/08 -2-

4. This application is strongly opposed. Learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that petitioner’s role is not limited to the

mere piloting. In fact petitioners and others decided to transport

the spirit to Kerala and petitioner was piloting the lorry in a

Maruthi car. Petitioner was committing the offence with full

knowledge that the lorry was containing huge quantity of spirit.

Accused 6 and 7 are not so far arrested. It is the 7th accused who

had entrusted the 1st accused to transport the article and if the

petitioner is released on bail, it will adversely affect the

investigation. The incident occurred on 28-5-2007 and the

investigation is at the preliminary stage. In an offence of this

nature the source of the article has also to be ascertained by

investigation.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in a case of

this nature, if petitioner is released at this stage of investigation,

it will adversely affect the investigation.

The application is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.