IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4465 of 2008()
1. RAJAN, KALLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4465 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail
2. The alleged offences are under sections 8(1) and (2) of the
Abkari Act. According to the prosecution, while the Excise officials were
on patrol duty on 23-5-2008 at about 6.30p.m., they found a person was
carrying a can at a distance of 25 feet and on seeing them, he abandoned
the article and ran away. He could not be arrested. Thereafter, on
examination, it was found that the can contained 3 litres of arrack. On
enquiry, it was found that the said person was the petitioner. On being
satisfied that the petitioner is the accused, a crime was registered under
section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was involved in similar offences in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005.
Thereafter, he has reformed himself and is not dealing with any contraband
articles. But, there was an attempt in 2007 to implicate him falsely in an
offence under the Abkari Act. Hence, he filed an application for anticipatory
bail. As per Annexure-I order, the said application was disposed of, since
BA 4465/2008 -2-
the learned Public Prosecutor filed a report stating that there was no fresh
case registered against the petitioner and that he was accused in four
Abkari cases where he was granted bail. It was found that the apprehension
of the petitioner that he was likely to be arrested in connection with some
new cases involving abkari offence was baseless. Hence the application
was rejected accepting the report of the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. The application for anticipatory
bail was dismissed as early as on 1-8-2007. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the present crime is in respect of an incident which occurred
on 23-5-2008 after the lapse of considerable period. The application is
opposed. It is submitted that there is absolutely no motive for the officers
to falsely implicate the petitioner in an offence of this nature. Issuance of a
blanket order of anticipatory bail would only aid the petitioner to commit
the offence under the Abkari Act , it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the case diary, I find that
the petitioner is prima facie involved in an offence under sections 8(1) and
(2) of the Abkari Act. There is nothing on record to show that the detecting
officer or any official was personally motivated to implicate the petitioner
in a false case. In the absence of any materials, a bald allegation made
BA 4465/2008 -3-
against the respondent will not be sufficient to come to a conclusion that
this is a falsely foisted case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is prepared to surrender before the court below. He may do so, if so
advised.
The application is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.