IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5500 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.196/2009 OF NEYYARDAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- BOBAS,S/O.CHALLAMMA,447,THOLICODE PARAYILVEEDU 3,KUTTAMALA AMBOORI,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No. 5500 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 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 third accused in Crime No.196/2009 of Neyyardam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 29/8/2009 at 5 P.M., the accused persons were found engaged in the manufacture of arrack. A quantity of 40 litres of wash was also seized. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on the spot. It is alleged that the petitioner herein ran away. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect him with the offence. He also submitted, relying on Annexure A2 and A3, that the petitioner was not available at the place on 29/8/2009. 5. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. Prima B.A. No. 5500/2009 2 facie, I am of the view that Annexures A2 and A3 would not show that the petitioner could not be present at the place of occurrence on 29/8/2009. The allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused are grave in nature. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm B.A. No. 5500/2009 3