IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4189 of 2009() -------------------------------------- C.R.NO. 36/2009 OF ARYANAD EXCISE RANGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT ...................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- BINUKUMAR, S/O. SUKUMARAN, ROADARIKATH VEEDU, ERAVOOR, ARYANADU. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No. 4189 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 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 first accused in C.R. No.36/2009 of Aryanad Excise Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (1) and (2) and 55 (b) (g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 15. 04.2009, while the Excise Party was patrolling , they got reliable information that the accused persons were distilling arrack, in the property belonging to one Prabha. Prabha is the sister of the first accused. Excise party found the accused persons engaged in the distillation of arrack. The first accused ran away. The second accused was arrested. Wash, utensils and implements for distilling arrack and 10 ½ litres of arrack were seized. The second accused was remanded to judicial custody and he was granted bail as per Order dated 19.5.2009 in Bail Application No. 2656/2009 by this court. B.A. No. 4189 of 2009 2 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest. 5. I have gone through the Case Diary. 6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence, prima facie, is unsustainable. This is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln