IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 268 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.1/10 OF KARTHIKAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ----------------------------------- KOMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, ANCHUCHIRAYIL, PALLANA P.O., THRIKKUNNAPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP.BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARTHIKAPPALLY RANGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.268 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.1 of 2010 of Karthikappally Excise Range, Alappuzha. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 4.1.2010, the petitioner and the other accused were involved in dealing with arrack in a public place. On seeing the Excise party, the petitioner and the other accused ran away. A quantity of 5.6 litres of arrack was found there. 4. When this Bail Application came up for hearing on 10th March 2010, a contention was raised by the petitioner that he is suffering from various diseases. A medical certificate was also produced by the petitioner. Taking into account the details mentioned in the medical certificate, it was thought that an BA No.268/2010 2 opportunity could be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 17th and 18th March, 2010, so that the relevant facts could be disclosed on questioning. A direction not to arrest the petitioner was also issued. 5. The petitioner complied with the direction to appear before the investigating officer. By that time, the investigating officer has gathered the information that the petitioner is involved in CR Nos.48 of 2000, 68 of 2000, 105 of 2003 and 42 of 2009 of the same Excise Range. It was also revealed that the petitioner was convicted for the abkari offence in CR No.105 of 2003. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that these facts were not known to him at the time when the case was heard on 10th March, 2010. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may, sometimes, be required. If anticipatory bail is granted to BA No.268/2010 3 the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl