JUDGMENT : M. Papanna, J. - This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. filled by the Petitioner Sirish Jaltare seeking his pre-trial release from detention in the jail custody in G.R.Case No.2089/2000 arising out of Khandagiri P.S.Case No.231/2000. 2. The prosecution case.as disclosed from the FIR lodged by the S.I.of Police,Khandagiri P.S., is that after station diary entry No,609 dated 24.6.2000 was made on the information received by the said S.I. that a truck bearing registration No.MP-24-C-3536 was plying from Cuttack side towards Khurdha loaded with non-duty paid adulterated foreign liquior, the said S.I. accompanied by a constable stopped the vehicle at Khandagiri Chhak and on enquiry from the driver of the vehicle the latter told that it was loaded with washing soaps.However, in the mean time the driver along with the helper of the truck escaped from the notice of the said police officer who thereafter on search of the vehicle found that it was loaded with foreign liquor packed in cartons which he unloaded and set the law into motion by lodging F. I. R. in Khandagiri P.S.and accordingly, Khandagiri P.S. case No.231/2000 under sections 420,272 read with section 34 IPC and also u/s 47(a) and 55of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act was registered. During the investigation the S.I. seized different brands of liquor which was chemically examined at State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh and found to be spurious. 3. A perusal of the statement of witnesses and also the statement of the Sirish Jaltara, present petitioner, reveals that the petitioner is working as a Transport agent for different transport companies of Bhilai dealing with non-duty paid foreign liquor. As such agent he is supplying non-duty paid foreign liquorto different districts of Orissa. The statement of the petitioner recorded by the investigating agency further reveals that one Punjabi driver, Darbar Singh was driving the truck to give delivery of liquor to some clandestine persons at Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Puri,Balugaon etc. preparing forged documents in support of transportation of adulterated foreign liquor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is neither the owner of the truck nor any incriminating articles were seized from his possession by the prosecuting agency and thereby connecting him with the complicity of the crime and that being so he claims release of the petitioner on bail on any condition. On the other hand, the learned Addl. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the application firstly on the ground that the petitioner is an outsider whose presence cannot be secured during trial if he is released on bail and secondly on the ground that he is involved in supplying adulterated liquor to different places in Orissa where innocent persons died by consuming the said liquor. 5. The learned Addl.Standing Counsel relies on 2001 (3) SC 551 (Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala) wherein it is found that the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner disregarding restrictions of the Kerala Abkari Act observing that no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the crime but the Kerala High Court set aside the anticipatory bail order of the Session Judge and the Apex Court in turn upheld the order of the High Court stating that the High Court is justified in setting aside anticipatory bail order of the Sessions Judge. The learned Addl.Standing Counsel has also relied on Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Another, by referring to which their Lordships observed that 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 the investigating agency to unearth all the links involved in the criminal conspiracies committed by the persons which ultimately led to the capital tragedy. Their Lordship further expressed reprobation at the 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 crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused. Such a way ward thinking emanating from a Sessions Judge deserves judicial condemnation. No court can afford to presume that the investigation agency would fail to trace out more materials to prove the accusation against an accused. Their Lordships felt that they are at a loss to understand what would have prompted the Sessions Judge to conclude at this early stage, that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime. Their Lordships felt that they are at a loss to understand what would have prompted the Sessions Judge to conclude at this early stage, that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime. The order of the Sessions Judge blessing the appellant with a pre-arrest bail order would have remained as a bugbear of how the discretion conferred on Sessions Judge u/s 438 Cr. P. C. would have been misused. 6. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel has also drawn my attention to the Indian Penal Code (Orissa Amendment Act, 1 998) by which, amendment of Sections 272 to 276 Indian penal code has been made. After amendment the offence committed under sections 272, 273,274, 275 and 276 IPC shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than imprisonment for life. 7. In view of the ample evidence available against the petitioners and also for the reasons that the petitioner being an outsider may abscond 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. The Criminal Misc.Case is dimissed. 8. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed