IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4484 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRMP.883/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA O.R. NO.68/2009 OF ADOOR EXCISE RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ E.N.GOPINATHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, AJITHABHAVANAM, POOTHAMKARA, ENADIMANGALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, ADOOR EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.4484 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of October, 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 accused No.2 in O.R. No.68/2009 of Adoor Excise Range, Pathanamthitta. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13/6/2009, the accused persons were found dealing with 115 litres of wash in a house. On seeing the Excise party, the second accused ran away. The first accused is the nephew of the second accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused stated that the person who ran away was the second accused, who is none other than the uncle of the first accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is also not proved that the petitioner is the owner of B.A. No.4484/ 2009 2 the house. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, it is not necessary to minutely consider the aspects of the case, which are relevant only at the time of trial. If any finding is arrived at this stage, it would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence. Prima facie, I am not satisfied that the contentions put forward by the petitioner deserves acceptance so as to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm