IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 381 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.19/2010 OF THRIKKUNNAPUZHA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU KRISHNAN PANIKKAR, PURAVARAM (SHYAM NIVAS) KRISHNAN CHIRA, THOTTAPPALLY (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SASI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, "SARATH BHAVANAM", LAKSHMI THOPPU, PALLANA (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.381 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 3 in Crime No.19 of 2010 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 8(1) & (2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.1.2010, the accused persons were found in possession of 165 litres of wash and 10 litres of arrack. The petitioners could not be arrested as they ran away and jumped into a river and escaped. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the petitioners with the offence. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted BA No.381/2010 2 in favour of the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the wedding of the daughter of the first petitioner (accused No.4- Chandran) is scheduled to take place on 5th February, 2010. It is submitted that if the first petitioner is arrested and detained, he would not be able to conduct the marriage of his daughter. It is submitted that this would result in great prejudice to the first petitioner and his family. As a last resort, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a direction may be issued not to arrest the first petitioner for a period of ten days, so that he would be able to conduct the wedding of his daughter. The request is just and reasonable. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. However, the investigating officer shall not arrest the first petitioner (accused No.4-Chandran) for a period of ten days from today. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl