High Court Kerala High Court

Kalandar vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Kalandar vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6417 of 2008()


1. KALANDAR, 43 YEARS, S/O.BEARY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :20/10/2008

 O R D E R
                                K. HEMA, J.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        B.A. No. 6417 of 2008
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 20th day of October,2008

                                  O R D E R

Petition for bail.

2. The alleged offence is under section 55(a) of the Abkari

Act. According to prosecution, a car was seen parked by the side

of National Highway and on seeing the police, petitioner who was

inside the car ran away and the 1st accused was arrested from the

car from the spot. 400 litres of arrack and 420 litres of spirit were

seized from the car. A crime was registered against both the

accused.

3. The incident occurred on 12-5-2001 and even after

expiry of seven years, petitioner was not available for arrest. He

was arrested only on 14-9-2008 only on repeated issuance of

warrants. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case

against 1st accused ended in a conviction. He opposed this

petition. It is also submitted that there is every chance for the

petitioner to abscond, if he is granted bail.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner was not arrested from the spot, and the only evidence

to connect petitioner with the crime is an alleged confession

statement made by 1st accused. Therefore, he may be granted

BA 6417/08 -2-

bail, it is submitted. This is the second application for bail before

this Court.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is not

only a mere confession statement by 1st accused against

petitioner but statement of other witnesses who had identified

petitioner from the spot are also available in the case diary to

connect petitioner with the crime.

6. On hearing both sides I am not satisfied that petitioner is

not guilty of offence or that he will not repeat the offence. Hence,

in view of section 41A of the Abkari Act, bail cannot be granted.

Apart from this, petitioner was absconding for more than seven

years and if bail is granted to him, it is likely that the trial will be

protracted.

Learned Magistrate is directed to take steps to

commit the case without delay to Sessions Court and

the Sessions Court shall see that the case is disposed

of without delay.

With this direction this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.