IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8802 of 2011() -------------------------- CRIME NO.1712/2011 OFKOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED : ---------------------- PRAKASH, ASWATHY BHAVAN, PERUMKULAM,KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.K.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8802 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 ORDER The petitioner had filed Bail Application No.7694 of 2011 for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Bail Application was dismissed as per the order dated 4th October, 2011. The said order reads as follows:- “This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1712 of 2011 of Kottarakkara Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) and (2) and 55(b) and (g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.8.2011, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.5 litres of arrack and 12 litres of wash. The petitioner was arrested on 21.8.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in ten Abkari cases. He also submitted that the petitioner was detained under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act and the present offence was committed immediately after the release of the petitioner from jail. Bail Appln.No.8802/2011 : 2 : 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner indulging in similar criminal activities. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes not to commit any other offence of similar nature, while on bail in the present case. This undertaking is recorded. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offences and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for `25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottarakkara, subject to the following conditions: - Bail Appln.No.8802/2011 : 3 : A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj