IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3201 of 2009 CP.4/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, PEERUMEDU CRIME NO.58 OF 2008 OF PERUVANANTHANAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.K.SOMAN, S/O.KOCHURAMAN MANNAMPUZHAYIL VEEDU, KOINADU BHAGAM, KOINADU KARA PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3201 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in C.P.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – II, Peermade in Crime No.58 of 2008 of Peruvanthaanam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 55 (a) and (g) and Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.3.2008, the accused persons, three in number, were found possessing 20 litres of illicit arrack, 700 litres of wash and the materials, utensils and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing arrack. Accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the scene. Accused No.3 was arrested. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 were not arrested as they were absconding. Subsequently, charge was laid. Summons was issued to the accused, which was not served. The petitioner states that he did not know about the case and the issue of summons. It would appear that warrant was issued later. On 3.6.2009, the petitioner surrendered before B.A. NO. 3201 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Court and applied for bail. The Bail Application was dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get bail at present. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/