IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 904 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.R.NO. 1/07 OF MATTANNUR EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- MUHAMMED RAFI, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 32 YEARS, PALLIPATHU HOUSE, NUCHIYAD P.O., ULICKAL. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MATTANNUR EXCISE RANGE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 904 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the second accused. His brother is arrayed as the first accused. The crux of the allegations is that an autorikshaw carrying 1300 packet of arrack, each containing 100 ml., was intercepted by the police. The person driving the vehicle took to his heels and could not be apprehended. He was the only person available in the autorikshaw. The contraband article and the vehicle were seized on 5.1.2007. Investigation revealed that the registered owner of the vehicle had executed an agreement and transferred the vehicle to the petitioner on 25.4.2006. The petitioner admits having become the owner of the autorikshaw on that date, but contends that the vehicle was transferred by him in favour of another as per a subsequent agreement dt.11.12.2006. The police is satisfied that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle, but is not satisfied that there has been a transfer of the vehicle by the B.A.No. 904 of 2008 2 petitioner on 11.12.2006. Investigation has led the police to the conclusion that the petitioner's brother/A1 was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. The petitioner has been brought on the array of accused only because he is the owner of the vehicle as per the agreement in question. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not available in India at the relevant time at all. The mere fact that some one who, in the absence of the petitioner, had used the vehicle objectionably should not expose the petitioner to the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention. He is willing to co-operate with the investigators. In as much as there is no allegation even that the petitioner was concerned with the transportation, he may now be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel. He is willing to produce his passport, a copy of which has been produced along with the application, to confirm that he was not available in India at the relevant time. 3. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application on condition that the petitioner may be made available for interrogation. B.A.No. 904 of 2008 3 He may be directed to co-operate with the investigators, it is prayed. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Subject to appropriate conditions, anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, I am satisfied. 5. In the result: (1) This application is allowed. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 27.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 28.2.08 B.A.No. 904 of 2008 4 and 29.2.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 27.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law. (d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 27.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.2.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm