IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4889 of 2009 LPC 4/2006 IN SC.790/03 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VADAKARA. PETITIONER (SOLE ACCUSED) --------------------------------------------- ISMAYIL S/O. MUHAMMED, CHARIYAKANDI, NALLALAM LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, CHERVANNUR AMSOM, NALLALAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, PALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4889 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in LPC No.4 of 2006 in SC No.790 of 2003, on the file of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The case was registered in 2002. The petitioner was granted bail in the year 2002. But, thereafter, he failed to appear before Court. After the committal of the case to the Sessions Court, steps were completed under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was transferred as LPC No.4 of 2006. Warrants were issued one after the other from 2006. But, the warrants were returned un-executed. On 30.7.2009, the petitioner was arrested. He moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected as per the order dated 14.8.2009. B.A. NO. 4889 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Petitioner never appeared before Court after the committal of the case to the Sessions Court. Even after warrants were repeated, the presence of the petitioner could not be secured. He was evading the Court. The only conclusion that could be arrived at is that the petitioner was purposefully evading the Court. Such a person is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/