Loading...

Unni Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Unni Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information