IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2664 of 2009()
1. SURENDRAN, S/O. VELU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/07/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No.2664 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is
the accused in Crime No.63/2009 of Karunagappally Excise
Range.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 9/04/2009, the Excise
Party got information that the petitioner is a person habitually
involved in purchasing Indian made liquor from the Beverage
Corporation, storing and selling it. They also got information that
the Autorikshaw driven by the petitioner was going through a
particular way. They waited. The Autorikshaw came. On seeking
the Excise Party, the petitioner who was driving the Autorikshaw
ran away. The Excise Party took into custody the Autorikshaw
and found a quantity of 15 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in
the Autorikshaw. Mahzar was prepared and the Autorikshaw was
seized. On 9/04/2009 itself, the matter was forwarded to the
B.A. No.2664/2009
Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kollam.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Autorikshaw
driver and he was not involved in any offence or any Abkari
offence. Two persons hired his Autorikshaw and asked him to
wait near the Beverage Corporation outlet. Those persons
continued to travel in the Autorikshaw after some time. When the
Excise Party intercepted the Autorikshaw, the two persons
travelling in the Authorikshaw ran away. Excise Party took into
custody the Autorikshaw. The petitioner was directed to furnish
the names and address of the persons who ran away. On
11/04/2009, he went to the Excise Office and furnished the
names and addresses of those persons. At that time, the
petitioner realized that he was made an accused in the case. On
30/04/2009, the petitioner submitted a representation to the
Excise Commissioner (Annexure A) and to the Asst. Excise
Commissioner, Kollam (Annexure B) in which he stated the true
facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is innocent and that he has been falsely
implicated in the case.
5. I have perused the Case Diary. The Mahzar shows that
B.A. No.2664/2009
there was only one person in the Autorikshaw. He was the driver
of the Autorikshaw. There were no passengers in the
Autorickshaw. The driver of the vehicle ran away when the
Excise Party intercepted the vehicle. On 9/04/2009 itself, the
vehicle was forwarded to the Assistant Deputy Excise
Commissioner, Kollam.
6. In the light of these facts as revealed in the Case Diary
file, prima facie, I do not think that the case put forward by the
petitioner can be accepted. I do not think that this is a case
where the discretionary remedy available under Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the petitioner.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm