IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1672 of 2010 C.R.NO.89 OF 2007 OF KATTAKKADA EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.VISWAMBHARAN NAIR, ROADARIKATH HOUSE, VELLARADA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PRADEEP, S/O.SADASIVA PANICKER, GOURI VILASAM, NELLISSERIKARA, VELLARADA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAJI, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, KOZHIKKODU ROADARIKATHU HOUSE, ANAVOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, KUNNINPURATHU HOUSE, ERUMBA DESOM, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KERALA KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMANA PANICKER, KASTHOORI BHAVAN, NARANELLOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 6. BALACHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PACHALLOOR MUDAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1672 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.R.No.89 of 2007 of Kattakkada Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 15.3.2010, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 16th and 17th March, 2010. B.A. NO. 1672 OF 2010 :: 2 :: Post on 22.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with C.R.No.89 of 2007 of Kattakkada Excise Range. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that petitioners 1 and 3, who are accused Nos.1 and 3, did not comply with the direction in the order dated 15.3.2010 and the other petitioners have complied with the direction. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioners 1 and 3, having failed to comply with the direction in the order dated 15.3.2010, are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 2 and 4 to 6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 and 4 to 6, the officer in charge of B.A. NO. 1672 OF 2010 :: 3 :: the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners 2 and 4 to 6 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners 2 and 4 to 6 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners 2 and 4 to 6 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners 2 and 4 to 6 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 3 (accused Nos.1 and 3) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 4 to 6 (accused Nos.2 and 4 to 6). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/