High Court Kerala High Court

Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 481 of 2009()


1. RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :18/02/2009

 O R D E R
                           K. HEMA, J.
         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      B.A. No. 481 of 2009
         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
           Dated this the 18thday of February, 2009

                            O R D E R

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 55(a) and (i) of

the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 1-1-2009 1st

accused was found in possession of nine litres of artificial Indian

Made Foreign Liquor. On investigation, it is revealed that it was

given to the 1st accused by the 2nd accused. 62 bottles of

contraband articles were seized from bushes, as per the

information given by 2nd accused. According to 2nd accused, the

contraband articles were given by 3rd accused. It is also

revealed that petitioner who is the 3rd accused had kept 35 litres

of spirit and 20 bottles of artificial Indian Made Foreign Liquor

on the terrace of partly constructed house of one Antony . The 1st

and 2nd accused were also arrested.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence. An attempt was

made by the Sub Inspector of Police to implicate petitioner

under the K.A.P. Act, but the proceedings were dropped by the

District Collector. Hence, the Sub Inspector with a view to

create false records, implicated the petitioner in this case.

Petitioner met with an accident on 22-12-2008 and he was

BA 481/2009 -2-

admitted in the hospital, as evidenced by Annexure-A. On 1-1-

2009 he was in the hospital and he was discharged only on 3-1-

2009, as seen from Annexure-A. It is also seen from Annexure-A

that on 26-12-2008 also petitioner was in the hospital, though

the date of admission and discharge are shown as 22-12-2008

and 23-12-2008 in Annexure-A. Though petitioner was

discharged from the Primary Health Centre on 23-12-2008, he

was admitted in St. James Hospital on 26-12-2008, as per

Annexure-A, it is submitted.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the

materials in the case diary, petitioner has kept the contraband

article in the terrace and he had supplied the same to the 2nd

accused. The investigation is at the initial stage and petitioner is

required for arrest and interrogation. The mere fact that

petitioner met with an accident on 22-12-2008 will not absolve

him from the liability of possession of contraband article which

was seized only on 1-1-2009.

5. On hearing both sides, considering the rival

contentions, at this stage it is not possible to conclude that

petitioner had not kept the article, as alleged. The date on which

the article is kept is to be ascertained and the prosecution does

BA 481/2009 -3-

not seem to have a case that it was kept on 1-1-2009.

Considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am

satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

Petitioner is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is

passed:-

1) 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.

2) No further application for anticipatory bail by

petitioner in this crime will be entertained by

this Court, since on the facts in this case, this

Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in

any subsequent anticipatory bail application will

amount to review, which is impermissible in law.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.