IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6757 of 2009()
1. C.KRISHNAN, S/O. CHINNAVEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.M.MADHUBEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 6757 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 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.23 of 2009 of Padagiri Police Station, Nelliyampathi,
Palakkad.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under
Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2009 at about
8.45 AM, the petitioner was found transporting 7.5 litres of Indian
Made Foreign Liquor in a TVS Moped, which did not bear any
registration number. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner ran
away and, therefore, he could not be arrested.
4. In the Bail Application, the petitioner has put forward his
case. His daughter was suffering from severe stomach pain. On
26.10.2009, when he was riding on his motor bike to see a doctor,
B.A. NO. 6757 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
the police party has intercepted the vehicle. They insisted for
production of the registration certificate and other documents. The
petitioner was not having in his possession the documents. There
was some exchange of words. On account of the same, the police
has foisted the present case against the petitioner.
5. It is also stated by the petitioner that on 27.10.2009, while
he was going for work in Nelliyampathi Tea and Produce Company
Limited, there was a break down of his vehicle. The vehicle was
parked in a shed. The petitioner informed his brother to bring a
mechanic to that place to repair the vehicle. By about 9 AM, when
his brother came to the spot, he did not see the vehicle. The vehicle
was illegally taken by the police. It is further stated thus:
“Only after the duty time the petitioner came to
know that the vehicle is under the custody of Padagiri
Police alleging an offence under Section 55(a).”
The duty time is also mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Bail
Application as 7AM to 12 PM.
6. At the time when the Bail Application came up for hearing,
it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the
B.A. NO. 6757 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
relevant time, the petitioner was working in the Estate. Learned
Public Prosecutor was directed to verify. The learned Public
Prosecutor has produced before me a certificate issued by
Nelliyampathi Tea and Produce Company Limited, which would
show that the petitioner was on unauthorised absence from
24.10.2009 to 11.11.2009.
7. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, I
do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in
favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper
investigation of the case.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
