IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3405 of 2011() ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO.313/2010 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT) ........ PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- SURESH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, SURABHI BHAVAN, POTHUPARA, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE S.I OF POLICE, KOODAL PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 693. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LATHA K. THANKAPPAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------- BA No.3405 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of May 2011 Order This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking bail. 2. The petitioner is accused in Crime No.313/10 of Koodal Police Station for the offence punishable under Sec.55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The accused was alleged to have possessed huge quantities of wash. He has been in judicial custody from 19.04.2011. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the materials collected in support of the allegations and the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses and the apprehension of threat to the complainants are matters to be gone into while considering the application for bail. The materials available on record would prima facie show that there is merit in the complaint lodged by the complainant. 3. The prosecution contends that there is possibility that the accused may commit similar offences, if granted bail and that he would tamper with evidence or witnesses and threaten or terrorise the witnesses and would indulge in similar such activities which would hamper smooth investigation. The contention raised by the prosecution is that there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. The application is dismissed. N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge sta