IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3203 of 2009 CP.4/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, PEERUMEDU CRIME NO.58 OPF 2008 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- OMANAKUTTAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PAZHUKKA UNNATHIL VEEDU, VELLANI BHAGAM, MATHAMBA KARA, PERUNANTHANAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3203 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.P.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – II, Peermade in Crime No.58 of 2008 of Peruvanthaanam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 55 (a) and (g) and Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.3.2008, the accused persons, three in number, were found possessing 20 litres of illicit arrack, 700 litres of wash and the materials, utensils and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing arrack. Accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the scene. Accused No.3 was arrested. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 were not arrested as they were absconding. Subsequently, charge was laid. Summons was issued to the accused, which was not served. The petitioner states that he did not know about the case and the issue of summons. It would appear that warrant was issued later. On 3.6.2009, the petitioner surrendered before B.A. NO. 3203 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Court and applied for bail. The Bail Application was dismissed. On 4.6.2009, the petitioner filed another Bail Application. The court below rejected that application as per the order dated 4.6.2009. The decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad ((2001) 7 SCC 673) was relied on by the court below to hold that successive bail applications cannot be entertained unless there is change of circumstance. After holding that there is no change of circumstance, the court below dismissed the application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get bail at present. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/