IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3576 of 2008() CRIME NO.88/2005 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, @ BALIA AZEEZ, S/O.MOHAMMAD,AGED 28 YEARS, POOKALAM HOUSE, PUTHIGE, KUMBALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARGOD POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3576 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for bail. 2. Petitioner is an accused in C.P.No.115/08 for offences under section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The petitioner was arrested on a non bailable warrant issued by the court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the case and he did not receive any summons from the lower court. The petitioner was not arrested form the scene of occurrence and a false case has been foisted against him. The alleged incident happened in 2005 and he was shown as absconding accused while submitting charge sheet and warrant has been issued by the court below and he was, accordingly, arrested on execution of the warrant. 4. The bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the court below only on the ground that there is chance for the petitioner to abscond and that the matter was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public BA 3576/2008 2 Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is required for arrest in another case and this application is opposed. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner may approach the trial court itself for appropriate relief, in which event the court below will consider the contention raised by him that he did not receive any summons. This fact is not seen taken note of by the court below, while disposing of the bail application. The petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh application before the court below, in which event the court below shall consider whether summons was accepted by petitioner or not and dispose of the petition without delay. With these observations, the application is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE mn