IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 171 of 2010() ---------------------------- CMP.9459/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO.514/2009 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SANAL KUMAR @ OOMA SANAL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA PANICKER, GEETHA BHAVAN, POTTANCHIRA, KOTTAKKAKAM MURY, ARYANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.171 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.514 of 2009 of Aryanad Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.8.2009, the petitioner and the other accused were found in possession of 55 litres of spirit and they were engaged in the manufacture of arrack. On seeing the Excise Party, the petitioner and the other accused jumped into the river and escaped. The petitioner was arrested on 20.12.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other abkari cases, four cases involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and one case involving offence under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA No.171/2010 2 case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the petitioner is involved in several offences of similar nature and other offences, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to indulge in similar criminal activities. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Investigation of the case is not complete. There is also likelihood that the petitioner may make himself scarce and influence or intimidate the witnesses, if he is granted bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl