IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7541 of 2009()
1. KRISHNAPRASAD, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. VASU,
... Petitioner
2. CHANDRA BABU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 7541 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and
4 in Crime No.314 of 2009 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad
District.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section
55(a) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 25.6.2009 accused Nos.1
and 2 were travelling in a Ford Icon car. The car met with an
accident at Palakkad. It hit against a Tata Sumo car. Accused
Nos.1 and 2 escaped from the place. The car was lying in an
abandoned state. Police was informed. The police came to the
spot. On inspection of the vehicle, it was found that a quantity of 700
litres of spirit was stored in the car in 20 cans.
B.A. NO. 7541 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
4. The prosecution case is that accused No.1, who belongs to
Alappuzha, handed over the vehicle to accused Nos.3 and 4, who
were engaged in dealing with spirit. On the next day, the vehicle
was handed over back to accused No.1 after keeping the spirit in
cans in the car. While accused Nos.1 and 2 were coming from
Palakkad with the spirit inside the car, the vehicle met with an
accident.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused
No.3 is involved in two other cases; one abkari case and another
case registered for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case
where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect
the proper investigation of the case. The allegations levelled against
the petitioners are grave in nature. They do not deserve the
B.A. NO. 7541 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/