High Court Kerala High Court

Shibu K.P vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Shibu K.P vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6235 of 2009()


1. SHIBU K.P,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :30/10/2009

 O R D E R
                          K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                        ---------------------------
                        B.A. No. 6235 of 2009
                    ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 30th 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 accused No.3

in Crime No.534/2009 of Medical College Police Station,

Kozhikode District.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 55(a)(b)(h)(i) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 18.09.2009, at about

8.45 P.M., a search was conducted in a building, on getting secret

information that illicit liquor was being manufactured in that

building. In front of the building an Autorikshaw in which 68

bottles of illicit liquor were kept was found. On search of the

house, several bottles of illicit liquor, 450 litres of spirit and 250

litres of mixed liquor were found. The learned Public Prosecutor

stated that including the bottles found in the Autorickshaw 220

bottles of illicit liquor were found on the search. Accused No.1

who was found in the place was arrested. On detailed

B.A. No. 6235 of 2009 2

investigation, the complicity of other accused was revealed.

According to the prosecution the petitioner is involved in the

offence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence.

On a perusal of the Case Diary, prima facie, I am not inclined

to accept the contention raised by the petitioner. The offence

alleged against the accused persons is serious. In a case of

this nature, it is not proper to invoke the discretionary

jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is

dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

ln