IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3873 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.390/2009 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SANTHOSH.M.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MANAMKUZHY HOUSE, THEKKETHURUTHIYIL, THURUTHI KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. SAJAN VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KARIMBUMKALAYIL HOUSE, THURUTHI KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR SMT.V.K.SREENA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3873 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 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.2 and 3 in Crime No.390/2009 of Kuruppampady Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 16 of Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. On 13/04/2009, a quantity of 150 litres of Kerosene, which was expected to be supplied only through Public Distribution System, was seized by the police from the first accused. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, who are three in number, are involved in the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were implicated in the case on the basis of the statement given by the first accused, who is in inimical terms with the petitioners. 5. I have perused the Case Diary. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A. No.3873/ 2009 Page numbers case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 can be granted in favour of the petitioners. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm