IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10195 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRIME NO.95/2011 OF MAVELIKKARA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ RAJENDRAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KARUTHAKUNJU, ANJILIVILAYIL HOUSE, VARENIKKAL MURI, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE, REP.BY EXCISE INSPECTOR,EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.10195 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.95 of 2011 of Mavelikkara Excise Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.10.2011, the petitioner was found carrying 20 litres of arrack. When the Excise Officials tried to apprehend the petitioner, he ran away. Now the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from heart disease and if he is arrested and detained, he would be put to irreparable BA 10195/11 2 injury and great hardship. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate's Court, the learned Magistrate would remand the petitioner to judicial custody. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in another case of similar nature. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl