IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4006 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.10/2009 OF THANKAMONY EXCISE RANGE .................... APPLICANT : ACCUSED ----------------------------- JOSE,S/O.ULAHANNAN KANANAL HOUSE, MARIKKASSERY KARA VATHIKUDY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, THANKAMANY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4006 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.10 of 2009 of Thankamony Excise Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 24 litres of Indian made foreign liquor. 4. The petitioner moved Bail Application No.2923 of 2009 for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by me as per the order dated 5th June 2009. This is an application filed for the same relief thereafter. I do not think that the petitioner has made out any sufficient reason or shown the existence of any subsequent event justifying the filing of a second application for anticipatory bail. Though detailed reasons were not stated in the order dated 5th June 2009, such orders are being passed only after perusal of the CD file. Detailed narration of the BA No.4006/2009 2 contentions and the findings thereon are avoided in the Bail Applications to avoid prejudice to the accused. That does not mean that the court has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. There is no reason why the second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be entertained in the present case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl