Sainath Rao vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5594 of 2009()


1. SAINATH RAO,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :20/10/2009

 O R D E R
                            K.T.SANKARAN, J.
               ------------------------------------------------------
                         B.A. NO. 5594 OF 2009
               ------------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th day of October, 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

Crime No.621 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that 36 bottles of Beer were found

in a compound very near to the hotel run by the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, he is not in possession of that place and

that it is in the possession of some other persons.

4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

6.10.2009, the following order was passed:

“After having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the

view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an

B.A. NO. 5594 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear

before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a

direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating

officer at 9 AM on 13th and 14th October, 2009.

2. Post on 20.10.2009.

3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in

connection with Crime No.621 of 2009 of Kasaragod

Police Station.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that even when the petitioner appears on 13th

and 14th October, 2009, there is likelihood of the petitioner

being manhandled by the police. It is assured by the

Public Prosecutor that there will be no room for any such

complaint.”

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner appeared before the

investigating officer as directed in the order dated 6.10.2009.

6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and the fact that the petitioner has

complied with the direction in the order dated 6.10.2009, I am of the

view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will

B.A. NO. 5594 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the

officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his

executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the

following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating
officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate
Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further
orders;

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;

c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/