IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1674 of 2010() --------------------------------- C.R.NO. 166/2007 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 : ------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJAPPAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, SASTHAMANGALATH HOUSE, THOTTINVADAKKUMMURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, SREENILAYAM, THOTTINVADAKKUMMURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, MANNAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHENSANGETHAM DESOM, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1674 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd 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 3 in C.R. No.166/2007 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam 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 15.03.2010, 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 A.M. on 16th and 17th March, 2010. Post on 22.03.2010. B.A. No. 1674 of 2010 2 It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with C.R. No. 166/2007 of Karunagappally Excise Range, Kollam District. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. Hand over copy to both sides.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the third petitioner (accused No.3) has complied with the direction in the order dated 15.03.2010 and that the other petitioners did not comply with the order. 5. 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 third petitioner(third accused). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the third petitioner(third accused), the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer B.A. No. 1674 of 2010 3 concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The third petitioner(third accused) 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 third petitioner(third accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The third petitioner(third accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The third petitioner(third accused) 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 allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to accused No.3(third petitioner) and it is dismissed in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 2). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln