High Court Kerala High Court

K.M vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.M vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7894 of 2008()


1. K.M,.MATHEW
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :27/01/2009

 O R D E R
                            K. HEMA, J.
          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      B.A. No. 7894 of 2008
          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
             Dated this the 27th day of January,2009

                             O R D E R

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under section 8(2) of the Abkari

Act. According to prosecution, five litres of arrack were seized

from a toddy shop of which petitioner (A3) is the licensee.

Salesman (A1) was arrested from the spot. Manager (A2) ran

away and he could not be arrested so far.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though

the petitioner is the licensee, he is not actually conducting the

business in the toddy shop personally. He is running a ration

shop and Manager (A2) is entrusted with the running of the

toddy shop and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory

bail, it is submitted. He has no knowledge of sale of arrack in the

shop, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that accused 1 and 2

were already released on bail. Learned counsel for petitioner

submitted that petitioner is having heart disease and he

requires valve replacement and documents are produced to

BA 7894/2008 -2-

prove the same as Annexures-II to IV.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that on investigation, it is revealed that sale of arrack

is being conducted in the toddy shop with the knowledge and

connivance of petitioner and it is not correct to say that he has

no role in the business.

On hearing both sides, considering the nature of

allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail. The physical state of petitioner may not by

itself be a ground for granting anticipatory bail. It is needless to

say that consideration for grant of anticipatory bail is different

from consideration for grant of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. If

petitioner is physically sick and infirm, he may apply for bail

before the lower court and take up the contentions. It is made

clear that none f the observations made in this oder on merit, if

any, will stand in the way of the learned Magistrate disposing of

the application for bail, on merit .

Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender

before the Magistrate court concerned or before the

Investigating Officer without any delay and co-

operate with the investigation. Whether he

BA 7894/2008 -3-

surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him

and proceed in accordance with law.

With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.