High Court Kerala High Court

Pavithran vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Pavithran vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3972 of 2009()


1. PAVITHRAN S/O.V.P.GOVINDAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB E SIMON

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :17/08/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                    ----------------------------
                      B.A. No.3972 of 2009
                     ----------------------------
              Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009

                             O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused

in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Thalassery Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 15/01/2009, an

Autorikshaw bearing registration No. KL-11/B-4269 met with an

accident while a car hit the Autorikshaw. After the accident, the

driver of the Autorikshaw ran away. The Policeman on duty in the

Mahe Aid Post informed the Sub Inspector of Police over phone

about the incident and the Police party rushed into the spot. The

police party found several bottles of Indian made foreign liquor in

the Goods-authorikshaw. A crime was registered. Mahzar was

prepared. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner

was driving the Goods-autorikshaw at the relevant time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence. The

B.A. No.3972/ 2009
Page numbers

petitioner does not dispute the ownership of the Autorikshaw.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this by itself

is not a sufficient ground for implicating the petitioner in the

offence.

5. I have gone through the Case Diary and heard the

learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the

petitioner. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention

of the petitioner. I do not think that this is a fit case where

anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm