IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3202 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.19/09 OF MALAPPURAM EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- PAMPADY CHANDU,S/O.KEERAN,AGED 40 YRS, KOTHOLI HOUSE,N.H.COLONY,ARIMPARA.PO, KONDOOTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP;BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3202 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.19 of 2009 of Malappuram Excise Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(1) and (2) and Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. I have gone through the case diary. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. 5. On a perusal of the case diary, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioner. A meticulous analysis of the materials and evidence is not proper while considering the question whether anticipatory bail could be granted or not. If a finding or observation is made on the merits of the contentions, it would cause prejudice, either to the prosecution or to the accused. BA No.3202/2009 2 6. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are enough materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. Therefore, this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The discretionary relief under Section 438 cannot be invoked in a case of this nature unless there are materials to come to the conclusion that the case is a foisted one or that there is a complete dearth of materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl