Rajan Panicker vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17927 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 6220 OF 2021           1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 6220 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1233/2021 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS
                        COURT, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED

            RAJAN PANICKER,
            AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O. KUNJU PANICKER, RAJAMANDIRAM, PERINGODU, ENNAKKADU,
            MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA 689 622.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
            SRI.E.S.FIROS


RESPONDENT/STATE

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM 682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. NOUSHAD.K.A- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 6220 OF 2021                   2

                                        ORDER

Application for pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.545 of 2021 of

Manar Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections

8(1), 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act has moved this application

apprehending arrest.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in

possession of 1 litre of illicit liquor kept concealed in his house on

01.06.2021 at 9 p.m and when the police party conducted the search he

fled away from there and though the contraband was seized, he was not

arrested. Thus the case has been registered against him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned

Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has

absolutely no role or involvement in the alleged crime. But he apprehends

arrest by the police. Hence, this application.

6. From the records available before me, it could be seen that

there is a strong prima facie case against this petitioner. Moreover in the

order of the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the application it is

specifically mentioned that he is a habitual offender as he is involved in 19

criminal cases including 9 Abkari cases.

7. Though the quantity of the contraband seized from the

possession of the petitioner is only 1 litre, his criminal antecedents would

show that he is not entitled for an order of pre-arrest bail exercising the

discretion of this Court which is to be exercised sparingly. Hence, I hold

that this petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail as requested.

The bail application is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V JUDGE

smm