IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10260 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRIME NO.3/2008 OF CHITTUR EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : -------------------------------------- TITUS BABY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.BABY, PAINADATH VEEDU, ASHOKAPURAM DESOM, CHOORNIKKARA, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: amk P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------- B.A. NO. 10260 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.3/2008 of Chittur Excise Range for offence punishable under Section 64(A) of the Abkari Act, apprehending arrest, detention and torture at the hands of the Investigation Officer, filed a petition as Crl.M.C.No.1233/2011, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad, seeking an order directing the respondent to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest with a plea that he is innocent of the allegations. By Annexure 1 order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Seeking same relief, this petition is filed. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the investigation against the petitioner and other accused is over and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittur. It was numbered as C.C.No.393/2008. The petitioner is the third accused. In addition to offence under Section 64(A) of the Abkari Act, offence under Section 55(b) of the Abkari Act is also alleged. Accused 1 and 2 pleaded guilty. The petitioner was absent. So, the case against the petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.355/2009. From 1-08-2009 to 19-11-2010, the case was posted on various occasions for appearance of the petitioner. But she failed B.A. NO. 10260 OF 2011 2 to appear. Thereupon notice was ordered to the sureties. They also could not produce the petitioner despite time granted till 5-4-2011. In that circumstance, coercive steps were ordered against the petitioner and is pending execution. The learned Magistrate is correct in doing so. There is nothing on record to show that there was any attempt on the side of the respondent to arrest the petitioner. Even if there was any attempt, it is only under the orders of the court. The petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the trial court and to apply for bail, explaining the reasons for her absent on the posting dates. There is nothing on record to show that in the event the petitioner applies for regular bail, she would not get just and fair disposal of the bail application. I find no reason to reject the application for bail, if what is stated by petitioner is true. This petition is a misconceived one. In the result, this petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail, which the learned Magistrate shall dispose of on merits untrammelled by the observation of the Sessions Judge or of this court in the respective orders, as far as possible on the same day, provided due notice is given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge