IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 7010 of 2009() 1. SANTHOSHKUMAR @ SANTHOSH, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ... Respondent 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :01/12/2009 O R D E R K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.7010 & 7011 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 ORDER
Both these Bail Applications are filed by Santhoshkumar @
Santhosh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Bail Application No.7010 of 2009 relates to Crime
No.292 of 2006 of Karunagappally Police Station in which the
petitioner is the third accused. The offence alleged against the
petitioner is under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. The
prosecution case therein is that on 5.3.2006, a quantity of 12,005
litres of spirit was seized and that the petitioner was involved in
the offence. The petitioner was arrested in connection with
Crime No.85 of 2006 of Kayamkulam Excise Range and his
formal arrest in Crime No.292 of 2006 was recorded on
3. Bail Application No.7011 of 2009 relates to Crime
No.134 of 2006 of Sooranadu Police Station. In that case, the
petitioner is the 12th accused. The offence alleged against the
petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The
prosecution case is that on 12.5.2006, the accused persons were
found in possession of 12,740 litres of spirit. The petitioner was
BA Nos.7010 & 7011/2009 2
arrested in connection with Crime No.85 of 2006 of Kayamkulam
Excise Range and his formal arrest was recorded in Crime
No.134 of 2006 on 21.10.2009.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner is involved in seven other cases of similar nature.
6. The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave in
nature. The facts and circumstances of the case as revealed in
these two cases would indicate that the petitioner was dealing
with larger quantity of spirit during the period from March 2006
to May 2006. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that the petitioner was not available for arrest. At the same
time, he was engaged in his pursuit of transporting larger
quantity of spirit even thereafter.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner
can be released on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the Bail Applications are dismissed.