IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 547 of 2009()
1. KUTTAN @ SOMASUNDARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :05/02/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 547 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th February, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of the Abkari
Act. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 were found
transporting 5 litres and 3 litres of arrack respectively and
first accused was arrested from the spot on 22.12.2008.
Second accused abandoned the article and ran away.
3. Petitioner is the second accused. Learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that petitioner is a tapper and he is
falsely implicated in the case. One Divakaran, who is engaged
in illicit arrack business is on inimical terms with petitioner,
since he had given information to the excise officials regarding
the illicit activities and therefore, petitioner has been falsely
implicated. Annexure-A is a copy of the complaint given by
petitioner’s mother to the Superintendent of Police, alleging
that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Hence, anticipatory
bail may be granted, it is submitted.
BA.547/09 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that petitioner was identified by the Excise officials
and his name and other details find a place in the occurrence
report, mahazar etc. from the spot itself. Petitioner’s details
were ascertained and confirmed. First accused was arrested
from the spot and from him also petitioner’s details were
ascertained. It is not correct to say that it is a false case and it
is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the
submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. In a case of
this nature, on the bare assertion, the innocence cannot be
concluded. Considering the serious nature of the allegations
made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
The crime is registered as early as on 22.12.2008 and
petitioner is required for investigation. Hence, the following
order is passed:
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer and co-operate with the
investigation. Whether he surrenders or
not, police is at liberty to arrest him and
proceed in accordance with law.
BA.547/09 3
(2) No further application for anticipatory bail
by petitioner in this crime will be
entertained by this Court, since this Court
has already ordered that this is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail, on
appreciation of the facts and circumstances
and hence, any order passed to the contrary
in any subsequent application for
anticipatory bail may amount to review,
which is not permissible in law.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.