High Court Kerala High Court

Shayamlal.D. vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 10 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shayamlal.D. vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 10 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3712 of 2008()


1. SHAYAMLAL.D.,PUTHUVAL VELI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.TITUS MANI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :10/09/2008

 O R D E R
                                    K. HEMA, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              B.A.No. 3712 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008

                                       O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime. There are two more

accused in this case. A crime is registered against them for offences under

section 8(1) and (2) and 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the

allegations made. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is

actually involved in possession of liquor. It is pointed out that the

allegations in the First Information Statement themselves will reveal this

fact.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was standing on the

road in front of a temple, when the excise party came to the spot. On

questioning, the petitioner stated that coffee was being spoiled in the 1st

accused’s house. When the police party proceeded to the said house, he

gave an alarm to the other accused about the presence of the police and he

ran away. He could not be arrested.

4. This application is opposed. On going through the records, I find

that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was found on the

BA 3712/08 -2-

road and he gave alarm to the other accused to ran away, when the police

approached him. There is no case that the petitioner is involved in any

other offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Annexure-A reveals that the petitioner is getting an employment in the

Electricity Board and in case anticipatory bail is not granted his future will

be spoiled.

4. In the result, the following order is passed:-

1) Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer

within ten days from to day, in which event he will make himself available

for interrogation and thereafter he shall be produced before the Magistrate

Court concerned.

2). On production of the petitioner before the court, he shall be

released on bail o his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-with two solvent

sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court on

the condition that he will make himself available for interrogation as and

when directed.

This application is allowed as above.

K. HEMA,
JUDGE.

mn.