IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6685 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.75/2009 OF PAMPA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. .......... PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- JAYAN @ APRI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.PEELIPOSE, PATHACKAL VEEDU,MOOLAKKAYAM PAMPA VALLEY MURI, ERUMELI THEKKU VILLAGE RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR PAMPA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA RERPESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6685 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 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.6 in Crime No.75/2009 of Pampa Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 353 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P. Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 04.09.2009, the excise party was on patrol duty. They found an Autorickshaw parked near a river. When they approached the Autorickshaw, the person inside the autorickshaw threw away bottles to the river. One excise guard caught hold of one bottle. It contained illicit liquor. The Excise Party tried to take possession of the vehicle. At that time, the persons inside the Autorickshaw tried to escape and drove away the Autorickshaw. The excise party took away the key of the Autorickshaw. In spite of the fact that the key of the B.A. No. 6685 of 2009 2 autorickshaw was taken, the accused could manage to drive away the Autorickshaw and therefore, the excise party could not take the Autorickshaw into custody. The excise party traced out the whereabouts of the driver of the Autorickshaw. They got information that it was one Sandeep. The excise party went to the house of Sandeep. Sandeep was not available in the house. While returning from the house of Sandeep, the accused persons surrounded the excise party in three Autorickshaws, a van and a car. They tried to forcibly take away the contraband involved in the case. They demanded the excise party to return the key of the Autorickshaw. 4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 11 were arrested. Anticipatory Bail was granted by the Sessions Court to the accused Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14. Though the petitioner filed an application for Anticipatory Bail before the Sessions Court, that application was dismissed. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused Nos. 6, 8 and 12 are yet to be arrested. B.A. No. 6685 of 2009 3 5. Taking into account facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the other accused, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. That the Sessions Court granted Anticipatory Bail to some of the accused persons is not a ground to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln