IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6955 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.290/2001 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- KALANDAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. BEARY, CHOORITHADKA, BAMBRANE VILLAGE, KODIAMMA, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6955 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) along with another person were transporting 400 litres of arrack and 420 litres of spirit in a Contessa car and the first accused was arrested from the spot. A charge sheet was laid showing the petitioner as absconding. 3. Petitioner was arrested on 14.9.2008 and his application for bail was rejected, since he was absconding. The case has been transferred to the register of long pending cases. Learned public prosecutor submitted that if bail is granted, it is likely that petitioner may abscond. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that co-accused was convicted already. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the case has not been committed so far. Petitioner is in custody for the past more than one month. It is also submitted that petitioner was not absconding, but, he was defending a case in which he BA No.6955 /2008 2 was the sole accused (vide SC No.771/05) before the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kasaragod and the judgment was pronounced only on 22nd May 2008. So, it may not be correct to say that petitioner was absconding, it is submitted. 5. This is the second application for bail. As per order dated 20.10.2008 in B.A.No.6417/08, this Court had considered the request for bail and petition was dismissed with the direction that the learned Magistrate shall take steps to commit the case without any delay to Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was also directed to see that the case was disposed of without delay. In such circumstances, I find that if learned Magistrate fails to commit the case, without delay to Sessions Court, petitioner is at liberty to file an application for bail before the Magistrate Court itself, in which case, it shall be disposed of on merit. Learned Magistrate shall also consider specifically whether petitioner was absconding during relevant period or not. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl