IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6891 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CR.NO.111/2008 SASTHAMCOTTA EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONER ------------------------------ UNNIRKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, KANDATHU PUTHEN VEEDU (KRISHNA KRIPA) KOIKKAL BHAGAM MURI, PERUVELIKKARA, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (THROUGH GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI, FATHER OF THE PETITIONER) BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR ,SASTHAMCOTTA EXCISE RANGE SASTHAMCOTTA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6891 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner was found engaged in sale of Indian made foreign liquor. On seeing the Excise officials, he pushed down the excise guard and jumped into the river and 600 ml. Indian made foreign liquor and a glass were seized. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is mentally sick for the past 3 years and he is not aware of the consequences of the act. Annexures A1 and A2 are the medical records. Petitioner's father is prepared to produce petitioner before the Magistrate court and convince the court about his physical state and a direction may be issued to consider the bail application in view of the mental ailment and dispose of the same without delay. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, there is nothing to show that petitioner is suffering from any mental illness. B.A.No.6891/08] 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail. But considerations for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different from considerations under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The refusal to grant anticipatory bail is not a ground to grant regular bail also. Hence the following directions are issued: 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within 8 days from today. 2. Learned Magistrate shall dispose of the bail application, if any, filed by petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, after considering the contentions on merit. 3. While disposing of the bail application, the contentions relating to mental illness shall also be taken into account. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. B.A.No.6891/08]