IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6388 of 2011() ----------------------------- SC.143/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE CRIME NO.212/2005 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------------------- P.B.SAMAD, S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY, PUNNVALAPPU HOUSE, KOVVAPURAM, KANNAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, RAJAPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6388 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.143 of 2011 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III) Kasaragod. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 07/10/2005, when the excise party intercepted a vehicle, the petitioner was found transporting 4000 packets of Karnataka arrack each packet containing 100 ml. A quantity of 90 litres of spirit was also seized. The petitioner could not be arrested on the spot as he ran away. Later, he was arrested on 19/07/2006 and he was granted bail. The petitioner jumped bail and he could not be arrested, till 15/05/2011 on which date he was arrested. Meanwhile, the case was treated as Long Pending case. Now, the case is numbered as S.C.No.143 of 2011. The petitioner filed three applications before the Sessions Court for bail. Those applications were dismissed. Therefore the petitioner Bail Appln.No.6388/2011 : 2 : has approached this Court invoking Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The case which was registered in 2005 could not be disposed of only because of the deliberate acts of the accused. He could not be arrested as he ran away. After his arrest, the court was pleased to grant bail in spite of the fact that he could not be arrested earlier. Even after the court showed indulgence in his favour, the petitioner did not co-operate with the court in the matter of disposal of the case. He attempted to flee from justice. Finally, he was apprehended. Now he could not plead for any indulgence. The case is ripe for trial. I do not find any ground to grant bail to the petitioner. If bail is granted to the petitioner, he would flee from justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj