IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3701 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 147/2000 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAKURUP, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, CHANDRAVILASOM, CHIRAKKARA, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3701 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 21.05.2010 at about 11 A.M., petitioner(A1) along with second accused were found transporting 10.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in 16 bottles, for the purpose of sale. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2010 and he is in custody for the past 35 days. Petitioner did not receive any summons from the court and hence he did not appear in court and the court issued non bailable warrant against him. Petitioner was not absconding and hence petitioner may be granted bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was granted bail at the crime stage, in the year 2000. The date of occurrence is on 30.05.2000. Thereafter, for the past 10 years, he was absconding. The case against petitioner was transferred to long pending register and it B.A. No. 3701/ 2010 2 is likely that petitioner may abscond, if bail is granted, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure-I order, it appears that though petitioner was granted bail, he did not appear for trial for a period of 10 years. It has also been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that it is likely that petitioner may abscond again, if he is released on bail. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Petitioner has no case that he contacted his lawyer within the ten years of time and made any steps to participate in the trial. 6. However, if petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate court for expeditious disposal of the case and in case there is any un-avoidable delay in disposal, petitioner may apply for bail again before the court concerned. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln