IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5391 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 677/2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------ BROWN, AGED 39, S/O. GANGADHARAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KUNNUVARAM, ATTINGAL. BY ADVS. SRI. R.T. PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5391 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 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.2 in Crime No.677/2009 of Varkala Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.08.2009, the police party got information that Indian Made Foreign Liquor was being sold in Blue Berries Restaurant. The police Party conducted a search. Five bottles of beer were found kept for sale. The first accused was arrested and he stated that the restaurant is being run on partnership basis by the persons mentioned in the F.I. Statement. The petitioner is one among them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property where the restaurant is constructed, belongs to one Fazeela. The land was taken on lease and a building was constructed by Kunju Vareeth (third accused). Fazeela is an influential person. She wanted to get back the property. She B.A. No. 5391 of 2009 2 made threat to forcibly evict the lessee. A suit was filed by Kunju Vareeth against Fazeela and temporary injunction was obtained on 31.08.2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case was foisted at the instance of Fazeela. According to the petitioner, he is a member of the trader's organisation and he has no connection with the running of business in the hotel. The petitioner is made an accused only to wreak vengeance on him as he had intervened in the dispute when Fazeela made the threat to unlawfully evict the lessee. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor brought to my notice a menu card seized by the police from the restaurant. The menu card would indicate that several items of Indian made foreign liquor are being regularly sold in the restaurant. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are sufficient materials to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. No conclusive finding on this aspect is desirable, while disposing an application for Anticipatory Bail. B.A. No. 5391 of 2009 3 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would seriously affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln