IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7562 of 2009() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 670/2009 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 : ------------------------------------ BIJU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KOZHEKKATHU HOUSE, MALA PALLIPURAM DESOM, KODUNGALOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.670/2009, MALA THRISSUR) BY SRI. AMJAD ALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7562 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 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.3 in Crime No.670/2009 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons were found in possession of 400 litres of wash in a vacant land filled with shrubs. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused was arrested by Puthenvelikkara police in Crime No. 415/2009 for having found to be in possession of arrack. He disclosed the source of arrack and disclosed the place where the arrack was being distilled. Based on the information, the place was shown by the first accused to Mala Police. A quantity of 400 litres of wash and the utensils and implements for distillation of arrack were seized by the police. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.670/2009 of Mala Police Station. B.A. No. 7562 of 2009 2 4. 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 Anticipatory Bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to 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 ln