IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6708 of 2009()
1. NANU, S/O.CHANDRAN, ERUTHIPATTU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. EXCISE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER
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. 6708 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 O.R.No.120/2009 of Pathanamthitta Excise Range.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under
Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 16.10.2009, when the
excise party was patrolling, they got reliable information that
somebody was engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor
at a specified place. The excise party went there. They saw one
person engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. On
seeing the excise party, he ran away after abandoning 800 ml of
Indian Made Foreign Liquor and a glass. Witnesses stated that
the person who ran away was the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
case was foisted against the petitioner on account of the enmity
which the Excise party had towards the petitioner since he did
not disclose the whereabouts of one Prakash Kumar. The
B.A. No. 6708 of 2009 2
petitioner also relied on Annexure A bill issued by the Kerala
State Beverages Corporation which according to the petitioner
would indicate that he had purchased Indian Made Foreign
Liquor from the Beverages Corporation outlet. While disposing
of application for Anticipatory Bail, it is not feasible to consider
meticulously the materials on record and the contentions put
forward by the accused. It is also not feasible to arrive at a
finding on the merits of the case as it would cause prejudice
either to the prosecution or to the defence. On the materials on
record, prima facie, it cannot be said that the petitioner was
falsely implicated.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
granted to the petitioner. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the
petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of
the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln