IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5265 of 2008()
1. SUNILKUMAR @ SUDHEVAN, 42 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ASST.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5265 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of September,2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under section 55(a) of the Abkari
Act and sections 465, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. According to the
prosecution, on 4-9-2002 police seized a lorry from the property
owned by the 1st accused and huge quantity of spirit from the
lorry. Case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 6 have
committed the offence and they were in possession of the spirit
etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner was implicated in the offence, only as per charge sheet
laid on 10-11-2007 i.e, after five years of the incident. Even as per
the charge sheet submitted before the court, no material is
available to implicate petitioner with the crime. None of the
witnesses cited by the prosecution implicated petitioner. Learned
counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner is falsely
BA 5265/08 -2-
implicated in various other crimes also, with a view to help other
abkari contractors. Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court
in connection with proceedings initiated only against petitioner’s
property for recovery of kist arrears, avoiding other contractors.
Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and the
property from where the lorry was seized belonged to a totally
different person and the lorry also did not belong to petitioner.
Petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the lorry in any
capacity.
4. The application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that petitioner is involved in other crimes also.
Sidharthan who was a witness referred to the presence of
petitioner at the scene, as revealed from the case diary but he
conceded that the said person is not cited as a witness in the
charge sheet. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that
petitioner was shown as an absconding accused, and a warrant is
pending against him. Therefore, it may not be proper to grant
anticipatory bail to petitioner, especially in an offence of this
nature, involving huge quantity of spirit, it is submitted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner was not aware that he was made an accused in the
BA 5265/08 -3-
crime. He was very much available at his house and he is running
a hotel also. Petitioner is deliberately shown as absconding
accused and he came to know about the pendency of the case
recently, through the counsel. Petitioner is, therefore,
apprehending arrest in a non bailable offence and hence he prays
for anticipatory bail.
6. On hearing both sides, it is clear, as conceded by
learned Public Prosecutor that though crime was registered on 4-
9-2002, the name of the petitioner was implicated only as per
report dated 12-10-2007, which is filed after five years of the
incident and one month prior to the filing of the charge sheet. It is
also conceded that the only witness who referred to the
petitioner at the scene was not cited as a witness. As per the
records submitted before the trial court, none of the witnesses
incriminated petitioner. In the above circumstances, I find it just
and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. In the result, the following order is passed:-
Petitioner shall surrender before the committal
court within seven days from today and and if
any bail application is filed, petitioner shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.
BA 5265/08 -4-
25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate on condition that he will not commit
any offence while on bail.
The application is allowed as above.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.