High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
KANAKAN @ REJI v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 5231 of 2007  RD-KL 16712 (5 September 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBail Appl No. 5231 of 2007()
1. KANAKAN @ REJI
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, JB.A.No.5231 of 2007
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2007
ORDERApplication for regular bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. He faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. It is alleged that the petitioner was found transporting 525 litres of spirit in a Maruti 800 car. The alleged incident took place on 6.11.06. The petitioner took to his heels and could not be arrested. He was arrested, but later in some other crime. He has been taken into custody in this crime w.e.f 19.07.07 on the strength of a production warrant issued against him by the learned Magistrate.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He points out that though the petitioner has been detained as accused in this crime only from 19.07.07, he had actually remained in custody from 06.04.07. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted regular bail, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application vehemently. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the nature and the magnitude of the operation can be gauged from the fact that 525 litres of spirit were being transported by the petitioner and the co-accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the B.A.No.5231 of 2007 2 petitioner is involved in 3 other abkari offences and two other offences of theft. In these circumstances, the prosecution is obliged to oppose the application very vehemently, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . Investigation is not complete. Final report has not been filed yet.
4. In the wake of opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor, regular bail can be granted to the petitioner only if this Court is in a position to entertain the twin satisfactions contemplated under Section 41 A of the Kerala Abkari Act. I need only mention that in the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage, I am unable to entertain either of those two satisfactions. This bail application, in these circumstances, deserves to be dismissed.
5. This application for regular bail is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the learned Sessions Judge or this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation - not, at any rate, prior to 14.09.07. The investigator shall in the meantime make every endeavour to complete the investigation. Needless to say that this observation will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim bail by default if he is otherwise entitled for such bail.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)rtr/- true copy PA To Judge B.A.No.5231 of 2007 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.