High Court Kerala High Court

Bindhu vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Bindhu vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7625 of 2009()


1. BINDHU D/O.LALITHA, AGED 23 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LALITHA, W/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
3. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O.KUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :18/01/2010

 O R D E R
                         K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                      ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 7625 of 2009
                 ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 18th 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 petitioners are accused

Nos.1 to 3 in O.R.No.154/2009 of Adoor Excise Range.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under

Section 8(1)(2) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 8/12/2009, the

accused persons were found in possession of 9.45 litres of arrack

at their residence. Since, no woman police constable was

available, accused Nos. 1 and 2 could not be arrested. Accused

No. 4 was arrested on the spot. Accused No.3 ran away and

therefore, he could not be arrested.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the first petitioner was arrested after filing the Bail Application.

Therefore, the Bail Application is not pressed in so far as it

relates to the first petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused

No.2 is involved in three other abkari offences and accused No.3

B.A. No. 7625/2009
2

is involved in another abkari offence.

6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, 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. I am of the view that the petitioners

are 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

scm