IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH APRIL 2010 / 30TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2090 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.2019/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- MANIKANTAN,S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, SYAM BHAVAN,KOCHANAPPARA,KOTTAKKAKOM MURI, VITHURA VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPA. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No.2090 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of April, 2010. O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.18/2010 of Nedumangad Excise Range. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 10 ltrs. of illicit arrack on 22.3.2010 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.8(1) & (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was arrested on 22.3.2010 and thereafter he is undergoing pre-trial detention and hence this application for regular bail. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations levelled against him and after the arrest of the petitioner, he had already undergone about one month imprisonment and therefore his further detention is not warranted. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a person involved in two crimes of similar nature and both in the Bail A.No.2090/2010 2 cases the quantity involved is 10 ltrs. of illicit arrack. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that infact the petitioner was arrested when he was involved in the second crime and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get bail. 4. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The facts and circumstances involved in the case would show that there is no guarantee that the petitioner will not involved in similar crime, if he is released on bail. The facts involved in the case would show that, within a short span of one month from the date of the first crime, he had involved in another crime of similar in nature. Hence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Consequently, the prayer for bail is liable to be rejected. In the result, there is no merit in the petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/