IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6633 of 2009()
1. BROWN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 6633 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioner had filed B.A. No. 5391 of 2009 for the
same relief, which is prayed for in the present Bail Application.
B.A. No.5391/2009 was dismissed by a detailed order dated
29/9/2009, which is extracted below:
” This is an application for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in
Crime No.677/2009 of Varkala Police Station.
2. The offence alleged against the
petitioner is under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari
Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on
20.08.2009, the police party got information that
Indian Made Foreign Liquor was being sold in
Blue Berries Restaurant. The police Party
conducted a search. Five bottles of beer were
found kept for sale. The first accused was
arrested and he stated that the restaurant is
being run on partnership basis by the persons
mentioned in the F.I. Statement. The petitioner
is one among them.
B.A. No. 6633/2009
2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the property where the restaurant is
constructed, belongs to one Fazeela. The land was
taken on lease and a building was constructed by
Kunju Vareeth (third accused). Fazeela is an
influential person. She wanted to get back the
property. She made threat to forcibly evict the
lessee. A suit was filed by Kunju Vareeth against
Fazeela and temporary injunction was obtained on
31.08.2009. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the present case was foisted at the
instance of Fazeela. According to the petitioner, he
is a member of the trader’s organisation and he has
no connection with the running of business in the
hotel. The petitioner is made an accused only to
wreak vengeance on him as he had intervened in
the dispute when Fazeela made the threat to
unlawfully evict the lessee.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor brought to
my notice a menu card seized by the police from
the restaurant. The menu card would indicate that
several items of Indian made foreign liquor are
being regularly sold in the restaurant. Prima facie,
I am of the view that there are sufficient materials
to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the
offence. No conclusive finding on this aspect is
B.A. No. 6633/2009
3
desirable, while disposing an application for
Anticipatory Bail.
6. Taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not think that the
petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it
would seriously affect the proper investigation of
the case.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.”
There is no change of circumstances except that there is
change of counsel for the petitioner. There is no ground to
entertain a second application.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm