IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6757 of 2009 CRIME NO.23 OF 2009 OF PADAGIRI POLICE STATION, NELLIYAMPATHI, PALAKKAD. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- C.KRISHNAN, S/O. CHINNAVEL, AGED 45 YEARS, LILLY DIVISION, MANALARO ESTATE, PADAGIRI P.O., NELLIYAMPATHI, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SMT.M.MADHUBEN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6757 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 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 the accused in Crime No.23 of 2009 of Padagiri Police Station, Nelliyampathi, Palakkad. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2009 at about 8.45 AM, the petitioner was found transporting 7.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in a TVS Moped, which did not bear any registration number. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner ran away and, therefore, he could not be arrested. 4. In the Bail Application, the petitioner has put forward his case. His daughter was suffering from severe stomach pain. On 26.10.2009, when he was riding on his motor bike to see a doctor, B.A. NO. 6757 OF 2009 :: 2 :: the police party has intercepted the vehicle. They insisted for production of the registration certificate and other documents. The petitioner was not having in his possession the documents. There was some exchange of words. On account of the same, the police has foisted the present case against the petitioner. 5. It is also stated by the petitioner that on 27.10.2009, while he was going for work in Nelliyampathi Tea and Produce Company Limited, there was a break down of his vehicle. The vehicle was parked in a shed. The petitioner informed his brother to bring a mechanic to that place to repair the vehicle. By about 9 AM, when his brother came to the spot, he did not see the vehicle. The vehicle was illegally taken by the police. It is further stated thus: “Only after the duty time the petitioner came to know that the vehicle is under the custody of Padagiri Police alleging an offence under Section 55(a).” The duty time is also mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Bail Application as 7AM to 12 PM. 6. At the time when the Bail Application came up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the B.A. NO. 6757 OF 2009 :: 3 :: relevant time, the petitioner was working in the Estate. Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to verify. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced before me a certificate issued by Nelliyampathi Tea and Produce Company Limited, which would show that the petitioner was on unauthorised absence from 24.10.2009 to 11.11.2009. 7. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/