IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6685 of 2009()
1. JAYAN @ APRI,AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPEECTOR
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA RERPESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 6685 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th 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.6
in Crime No.75/2009 of Pampa Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 143, 147, 149, 353 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P. Act.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following:
On 04.09.2009, the excise party was on patrol duty. They
found an Autorickshaw parked near a river. When they
approached the Autorickshaw, the person inside the autorickshaw
threw away bottles to the river. One excise guard caught hold of
one bottle. It contained illicit liquor. The Excise Party tried to
take possession of the vehicle. At that time, the persons inside
the Autorickshaw tried to escape and drove away the
Autorickshaw. The excise party took away the key of the
Autorickshaw. In spite of the fact that the key of the
B.A. No. 6685 of 2009 2
autorickshaw was taken, the accused could manage to drive
away the Autorickshaw and therefore, the excise party could not
take the Autorickshaw into custody. The excise party traced out
the whereabouts of the driver of the Autorickshaw. They got
information that it was one Sandeep. The excise party went to
the house of Sandeep. Sandeep was not available in the house.
While returning from the house of Sandeep, the accused persons
surrounded the excise party in three Autorickshaws, a van and
a car. They tried to forcibly take away the contraband involved
in the case. They demanded the excise party to return the key of
the Autorickshaw.
4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 11 were arrested. Anticipatory Bail was
granted by the Sessions Court to the accused Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10,
13 and 14. Though the petitioner filed an application for
Anticipatory Bail before the Sessions Court, that application was
dismissed. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
accused Nos. 6, 8 and 12 are yet to be arrested.
B.A. No. 6685 of 2009 3
5. Taking into account facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the
petitioner and the other accused, I am of the view that this is not
a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. That the
Sessions Court granted Anticipatory Bail to some of the accused
persons is not a ground to grant Anticipatory Bail to the
petitioner. 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 adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln