IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1678 of 2010()
1. UNNI PILLAI, PARAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :25/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 1678 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2
and 3 in C.R. No.31 of 2010 of Excise Range Office, Kattappana,
Idukki District.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section
55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 7.3.2010, the first accused
was found engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the
tea shop run by accused Nos.2 and 3. On seeing the Excise party,
accused No.2 ran away. It is also alleged that accused No.3 had
entrusted the Indian Made Foreign Liquor to accused No.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners put forward his
arguments in great detail. He read the whole of the mahazar and the
occurrence report and tried to pick holes in the same to support the
B.A. NO. 1678 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
argument that the petitioners are thoroughly innocent. At this stage,
when the question is whether anticipatory bail is to be granted to the
petitioners, it is not proper to consider the facts so meticulously to
arrive at a conclusion whether the petitioners are guilty of the
offence. The question to be considered is whether, there are
materials, prima facie, to connect the petitioners with the offence
alleged against them. On a perusal of the case diary, I am satisfied
that there are, prima facie, materials to connect the petitioners with
the offence. The contention raised by the petitioner is a matter for
evidence and proof at the time of trial. That cannot be done at this
stage.
5. The offence alleged against the petitioners is grave in
nature. This is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted
to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it
would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
