JUDGMENT : M.P. Apanna, J. - This is an application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by Petitioner Sirish Jaltare praying to grant him pre-trial bail in G.R. Case No. 585/ 2001 arising out of Balianta P.S. Case No. 21/2001 subjudice in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the FIR lodged by the C.!. Bhubaneswar, Shri Prabodh Kumar Ray, is that some persons consumed spurious liquor sold by one Bulu alias Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra of Balianta. During the raid conducted by the said Circle Inspector and his staff at Balianta a truck-load of foreign liquor packed in cartons was found from the house of said Bulu alias Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra. The police recovered and seized foreign liquor of different brands kept in cartons in support of which the accused could not produce any authority. The liquor was spurious by consuming which many peopre died. During investigation of the case it came to lime light that the culprit Prakash Chandra Mohanty along with the present Petitioner sold liquor at different places like Puri, Chandanpur, Balugaon etc. It is alleged further that the present Petitioner used to supply foreign liquor to different places in Orissa through accused Bulu. It is also alleged that the recent liquor tragedy causing death of the consumers of liquor at Puri and its sorrounding areas took place because of consumption of the said spurious liquor supplied by the present Petitioner. On the F.I.R., alleged by the C.I., Bhubaneswar, Balianta P.S. Case No. 21/2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 585/2001 was registered and during investigation the present Petitioner along with other culprits were arrested. Thus material evidence collected by the investigating agency reveals that foreign liquor in huge quantity was being supplied to different places in Orissa by the present Petitioner. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that he is innocent of the allegation. He is neither the owner of the truck seized during the investigation nor any incriminating articles were seized from his possession. That apart, he submits that he has been in jail custody since long for which his family members suffer a lost as he is the only earning member of his family. He submits to release the Petitioner on any condition to which the learned Addl. That apart, he submits that he has been in jail custody since long for which his family members suffer a lost as he is the only earning member of his family. He submits to release the Petitioner on any condition to which the learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes on the ground that he being an outsider will not return to court during trial and that apart the offence committed by him being serious in nature he is not entitled to bail particularly when the state of Orissa amended Sections 271 to 276 Indian Penal Code which now punish the wrong doer with sentence of imprisonment for life and also with fine. 4. In Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerala it is held that person involved in offence u/s 8(2) of Abkari Act is not entitled to be released on bail. Their lordships further held that in the liquor tragedy case grant of pre-arrest bail to the Appellant merely on the ground that investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the Appellant with crime except confessional statement of co-accused is condemnable. In the opinion of the Apex Court there is mis-use of discretion by the Sessions Judge u/s 438, CI.P.C. in the reported case. It is rather profitable to quote a few lines from the decision referred to above as follows: 5. One of the offences involved for which the legislature has imposed stringent restrictions even in regard to the grant of regular bail is Section 8(2) of the Act which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and a fine which shall not be less than Rupees one lakh. If the position is thus in regard to an accused even after arrest, it is incomprehensible how the position would be less when he approaches the Court for pre-arrest bail knowing that he would also be implicated as an accused. Custodial interrogation of such accused is indispensably necessary for investigating agency to unearth all the links involved in the criminal conspiracies committed by the persons which ultimately led to the capital tragedy. Court expresses reprobation that supercilious manner in which the Sessions Judge decided to think that "no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the Petitioner with the cri m e except. Court expresses reprobation that supercilious manner in which the Sessions Judge decided to think that "no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the Petitioner with the cri m e except. the confessional statement of the co-accused, and judicially condemns such a wayward thinking emianating from a Sessions Judge. No Court can afford to presume that the investigating agency would fail to trace out more materials to prove the accusation against an accused. The order of the Sessions Judge, blessing the Appellant with a pre-arrest bail discloses misuse of discretion conferred on Sessions Judge u/s 438, Cr.P.C. 6. In The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ritesh Wanjari, it is held that accused charged for various offences including murder and conspiracy filed an application for bail and the High Court on referring to merits of the case recorded finding that there was no material on record to show that he was guilty of conspiracy in execution of which, deceased, once his beloved, was murdered. High Court did not affords opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence for establishing existance of conspiracy despite observing that the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court held that the order granting bail to the accused is liable to set aside being contrary to law. 7. In the instant case, the Petitioner is charged with the offences punishable under Sections 420, 272, 273 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and also Sections 47 (a) and 55 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. From the materials discussed above, involvement of the Petitioner in the complicity of the crime of supplying non-duty paid foreign liquor to some clandestine persons at Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Puri, Balugaon etc. by preparing forged documents in support of transportation of spurious foreign liquor cannot be disbelieved and the offences committed by him being serious in nature and particularly when he being an outsider, there is likelyhood of his absconding after his release from detention and thereby fleeing from justice, I do not think it proper and justiciable to exercise my discretion in allowing the Petitioner to be released on bail which is accordingly refused. 8. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of.