IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2458 of 2009()
1. ASSAIN AGED 40 YEARS,ADIYATTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 2458 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in
Crime No.18 of 2009 of Vythiri Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Rule
16 of the Kerosene Control Order and Sections 3 and 7(1)(a) of the
Essential Commodities Act.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: On
11.2.2009, the police party found accused Nos.1 to 3 engaged in
filling kerosene into the diesel tank of a lorry owned by accused
No.1. Accused No.2 is the driver of the autorickshaw and accused
No.3 is the salesman of the ration shop belonging to accused No.4.
The allegation is that the fourth accused, the dealer of the ration
shop, sold the kerosene to accused No.1, which was transported in
the goods autorickshaw driven by the second accused. The
kerosene was being filled in the tank of the lorry owned by the first
accused.
B.A. NO. 2458 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on
inspection of the Ration Shop by the Rationing Inspector, he found
that the stock available in the ration shop of the petitioner was
correct and that there was no shortage or excess of stock. At this
stage, I do not think that the report of the Rationing Inspector is
relevant. The allegation is very grave. The kerosene was intended
to be supplied to the ration card holders by way of Public Distribution
System. The allegation is that kerosene to be distributed to the card
holders was sold by the petitioner to accused No.1 for a higher profit.
In an offence of this nature, I do not think that it is proper to grant
anticipatory bail to the accused. If anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the
case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the
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/