C.Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
C.Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2009




Bail Appl..No. 6757 of 2009()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       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,


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.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information