IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7066 of 2009 CRIME NO.577 OF 2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ DIVAKARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7066 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th 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 the first accused in Crime No.577 of 2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act and Sections 294(b) and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 1.11.2009, the police party, on getting secret information that the petitioner was engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, went to the house of the petitioner. The police party found three persons consuming something in front of the house of the petitioner. On seeing the police party, they escaped. Three women, who are residing in the other portion of the twin house came and obstructed the entry of the police party to the house. As there was no woman police constable, the police party could not remove the obstruction and enter into the B.A. NO. 7066 OF 2009 :: 2 :: house. The presence of women police constables was secured after some time and a search was conducted in the house. On such a search, a quantity of 15.435 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was found in the kitchen of the house belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner could not be arrested as he ran away in the meanwhile. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sequence of events, as stated in the Mahazar, would show that the prosecution case cannot be believed and that the present case is a foisted one. It is submitted that it cannot be believed that a physically challenged person like the petitioner would run away so as to make the police party unable to arrest him. While disposing of the application for anticipatory bail, it is not necessary to consider on merits the rival contentions put forward by either party. It would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence. On going through the case diary, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioner in this regard. 5. The petitioner relied on Annexure A1 disability certificate issued by A.A.Rahim Memorial District Hospital, Kollam. The B.A. NO. 7066 OF 2009 :: 3 :: disability certificate was issued after an assessment of the disability by the members of a medical board consisting of five experts in different fields of medicine. The disability certificate would disclose that the petitioner is physically handicapped by 40%. It is also seen from the disability certificate that there is a non-healing wound on the body of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disability was caused as a result of the road traffic accident in which the petitioner was involved. 6. In view of the physical disablement of the petitioner, as revealed in the disability certificate, I am of the view that it would not be required, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to arrest and detain the petitioner in judicial custody. It would cause much inconvenience and agony to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Only for that reason, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the B.A. NO. 7066 OF 2009 :: 4 :: satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, 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 to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/