IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8181 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.44/2011 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER :ACCUSED No.4: -------------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR.S., S/O.SUKUMARAN, BANGLAVIL VILA VEEDU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU MURI, SARKKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-31. 2. THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, CHIRAYANKEEZHU EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. STATE PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8181 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.44 of 2011 of Chirayinkeezhu Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 55(a), 55(d) and 57 (a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8-6-2011, accused Nos.1 to 3 were found engaged in mixing toddy with spirit for the purpose of sale of the same in the toddy shop belonging to the petitioner. 4. The learned State Prosecutor submitted that in the six samples taken for analysis, the percentage of the ethyl alcohol were found as follows:- ethyl alcohol 95.82% 14.44% 17.73% 15.86% 15.18% 19.48% Bail Appln.No.8181/2011 : 2 : 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other accused were granted regular bail by this Court and therefore there is no reason why the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. I am not inclined to accept this contention at all. The parameters for granting regular bail are quite different from those for granting anticipatory bail. The discretion to be exercised and the matters to be considered are quite different in an application under Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C. on the one hand and the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on the other. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. 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. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. 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 skj