IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 526/2009 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION .................. APPLICANT/7TH ACCUSED : -------------------------------- K.V.BALAMURUGAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.VARATHARAJAN, FOREST GUARD, UTHAMAPALAYAM, THENI, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 134 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 6 & 134 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime Nos.525/2009 and 526/2009 of Kattappana Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The petitioner had filed Bail Application Nos.6458/2009 and 6459/2009 for Anticipatory Bail. Those Bail Applications were dismissed by the order dated 13.11.2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 13.11.2009 is extracted below: “These Bail Applications are filed by K.V.Balamurugan, accused No.7 in Crime No.526 of 2009 and accused No.9 in Crime No.525 of 2009 of Kattappana Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner and the other accused persons is under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 15.9.2009 at 2.35 A.M., on getting information that spirit was being B.A. Nos. 6 & 134 of 2010 2 unauthorisedly transported from Tamil Nadu to Kerala, the Circle Inspector of police intercepted a vehicle. On search, it was found that 700 litres of spirit was being transported in that vehicle. Two persons were arrested. Crime No.525 of 2009 was registered. Later, the police got information that some cans were found in an abandoned state at a place. The police party went to the place at 7.30 A.M., on 15.9.2009. The police found 10 cans of spirit, each can containing 35 litres. One can contained 2 litres of spirit. They also found 16 empty cans. Crime No.526 of 2009 was registered in respect of that offence. 4. Investigation revealed that one Manoharan, the first accused in both the cases, planned to transport spirit from Tamil Nadu to the State of Kerala. He sought the assistance of the other accused persons. Two Wagon R cars were also arranged for that purpose. The petitioner is a forest guard in the Tamil Nadu Forest Department. He was contacted and he was paid money for the purpose of allowing the vehicles containing spirit to pass through the Tamil Nadu forest check post. The petitioner advised the first accused to contact one Jayan who is a temporary watcher in the check post of the Forest Department. Jayan was also contacted B.A. Nos. 6 & 134 of 2010 3 and he was also bribed. The allegation is that on the vehicles reaching the check post, as arranged by the petitioner herein and Jayan, the vehicles were allowed to pass through the check post without any difficulty. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was not on duty at the relevant time and therefore, he cannot be implicated as an accused in the case. 5. From the facts narrated above, prima facie it is clear that the allegations made by the prosecution that the petitioner is a party to the arrangements made at the check post for the passage of the two vehicles carrying spirit is true. Whether the petitioner was on duty as such may not be quite relevant for the time being. 6. The offence alleged against the accused persons is serious in nature. Large quantity of spirit was allegedly transported from Tamil Nadu to Kerala. It is also alleged that arrangements were made at the Tamil Nadu check post for the easy passage of the vehicle to the State of Kerala. It is alleged that the petitioner is responsible for making arrangements for the passage of vehicles at the check post. B.A. Nos. 6 & 134 of 2010 4 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be extended in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would seriously affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed.” 3. The present applications are filed for the same relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Annexures B to D to contend that the petitioner was not on check post duty on the relevant date and that he was on some other duty. The learned counsel also points out that on 15.09.2009, the petitioner had informed the superior officer about the bend caused to the gate of the check post and as instructed by the superior, a new rod was fitted after removing the old rod. 4. I do not think that the materials now produced by the petitioner constitute a sufficient ground for granting the relief in the second application for Anticipatory Bail. Even while disposing B.A. Nos. 6 & 134 of 2010 5 of the earlier applications, the contention raised by the petitioner that he was not on duty in the check post at the relevant time, was taken note of and it was considered. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in these Bail Applications. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln