High Court Kerala High Court

Joseph Dellus vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 20 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Joseph Dellus vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 20 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7751 of 2008()


1. JOSEPH DELLUS, AGE 52,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :20/01/2009

 O R D E R
                            K.HEMA, J.

                -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.7751 of 2008
                -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 20th January, 2009

                             O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Section 55(a) and (h)

of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, first accused was

found in possession of 28.120 litres of Indian made foreign

liquor on 11.11.2008 and he was arrested from the spot. On

investigation, it is revealed that accused 2 to 4 entrusted the

said article to the first accused for sale.

3. Petitioner is second accused in the crime. Learned

counsel for petitioner submitted that the only allegation as per

the prosecution case is that petitioner gave a glass to first

accused. But, it will not constitute any offence and hence,

anticipatory bail may be granted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that as per the case diary, the information received

is that accused 2 to 4 have given the contraband article to first

accused for the purpose of sale and the said fact is

BA.7751/08 2

investigated into. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it may not be

proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, when a crucial

allegation is being investigated into, since it is likely to affect

investigation adversely. Petitioner is required for

interrogation.

Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender

before the investigating officer without any

delay and co-operate with the investigation.

Whether he surrenders or not, police is at

liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance

with law.

With this direction, petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.