IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1021 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.84/2010 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- NATARAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, SHANTIBHAVANAM, 691/14 10TH MILE, VALARA P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SHEEJA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. S.I. OF POLICE, ADIMALY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1021 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.84 of 2010 of Adimaly Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7.2.2010, the accused persons were found engaged in the sale of Indian made foreign liquor. Accused No.2 was arrested on the spot. It is stated that accused No.1 ran away. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other cases of similar nature. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to accept the contention that there are no materials, prima facie, to BA No.1021/2010 2 connect the petitioner with the offence. The offence alleged is grave. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Moreover, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would compel me to come to the conclusion that the discretionary relief under Section 438 cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl