IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6014 of 2009 CRIME NO.44 OF 2009 OF CAMBOMMETTU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI. PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------ SHAJI @ KUNJUMON, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THAKIDIPURATH VEEDU, THANKACHANKADA BHAGOM, CUMBAMMETTU KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.44/2009 OF CUMMBAMMETTU POLICE STATION) IDUKKI DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6014 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 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 second accused in Crime No.44 of 2009 of Cambommettu Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.2.2009, the first accused was found in possession of five litres of arrack. He was arrested on 21.2.2009 itself and he was remanded to judicial custody. It is stated that the first accused made a confession statement on 21.2.2009, in which he stated that the arrack was supplied to him by the second accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that at the time when the first accused was remanded to judicial custody, in the remand report there was no case that the petitioner had supplied B.A. NO. 6014 OF 2009 :: 2 :: arrack to the first accused. At that time, the alleged confession was recorded by the police. Only in the remand report dated 7.3.2009 there is a slight indication of the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. Even in that remand report, there is no mention of any confession statement made by the first accused. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in order to see that he is detained in jail. The petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 7. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 6014 OF 2009 :: 3 :: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/