IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6467 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.464/03 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. RAJESH, S/O.SIVANANDAN, AGED 24 YEARS, PARVATHI NIVAS, H.NO.16/280, CHITTATTINKARA, ATTINGAL. 2. MOORARI, S/O.SADASIVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, AIKKARAVILAGATH HOUSE, PETTA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEER SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6467 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a), (i) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 99 litres of spirit and 1200 litres of toddy mixed with spirit were seized from the toddy shop, of which first accused is the licensee and second accused is the Manager. The toddy was mixed with spirit by accused 3 and 4 and it was being sold from the toddy shop. The incident was occurred on 11.9.2003. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is no evidence against petitioner either direct or indirect, to connect them with the offence. First accused is the licensee and second accused is the Manager of the toddy shop. The chemical analysis report is not being produced before the court and the article involved is not examined by chemical analyst. The article is seized from the toddy shop and charge sheet was laid as early as on 25.4.2006. Warrants were issued against petitioners in the committal proceedings. Petitioners were not aware of the pendency of the case and if petitioners surrender, they will be remanded to custody and hence, this petition. BA.6467/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that spirit was seized from the shop of first accused and his salesmen were arrested from the spot. It may not be correct to say that petitioners were not aware of the search, arrest, seizure etc. but petitioners were not available for arrest or investigation and hence, a charge sheet was laid on 25.4.2006 showing petitioners as absconding. Therefore, warrant has been issued by the court from 2006 onwards. For the past two years petitioners were not available for committal proceedings also. In the above circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners were not available for investigation and arrest. Warrant has been issued against them from the committal court. It is not understood under what circumstances, the warrant was issued by the Magistrate Court. It is also not understood whether summons were issued to petitioners from the committal court without knowing these details, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners have to surrender before the court concerned and co-operate with the committal proceedings. BA.6467/08 3 Considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are different from considerations for regular bail. If petitioners have valid contentions to raise, they may do so before the committal court. However, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and whether petitioners surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Magistrate Court. With this observation and direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.