IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1348 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.103/2002 PF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- E.V.SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, IDAYILE VEEDU, PILICODE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M .S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1348 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.103/2002 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 10 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, each bottle containing 750 ml, intended for sale. It is pointed out that the Indian Made Foreign Liquor was expected to be sold only in the State of Karnataka. 4. The petitioner was absconding. He was arrested on 4/1/2010. The petitioner moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed that application by the order dated 4/2/2010. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the petitioner was released on bail on three occasions earlier and on all the occasions, after releasing on bail, he absconded. B.A. No. 1348/2010 2 5. The learned Sessions Judge also held that no justifiable reason was shown by the petitioner for his absence on earlier occasions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a coolie in Karnataka State and he could not contact his counsel, as the employer of the petitioner did not allow him to go. It is also submitted that the petitioner has to maintain his wife and children and if he is detained in judicial custody, his family would be put to great hardship. 7. I do not think that the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. Bail was granted to him on earlier occasions. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge indicates that after granting bail, the petitioner had absconded at least on three occasions earlier. If bail is granted to the petitioner now, there is likelihood of his absconding. The crime was registered in 2002. The case is not disposed of even in 2010. Only because of the absence of the petitioner, the case could not be disposed of. 8. Taking into account the fact that the crime was registered in 2002 and also the fact that the petitioner is in B.A. No. 1348/2010 3 judicial custody, the learned Sessions Judge will expedite the trial of the case. With the above observations, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm