IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6658 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 319/2008 OF RANNI POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED :- -------------------- RAJEEV, S/O.PRABHODHARAN,PUTHEN VEETIL, THALACHIRA, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, RANNI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6658 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 3-7-2008 750 litres of wash were seized from a rubber estate. A case was registered and on investigation, it was revealed that accused 1 to 4 were engaged in distillation of arrack and illicit arrack was being transported in the vehicle belonging to 2nd accused. The 1st accused alone was arrested in this case. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 4-7- 2008 the vehicle belonging to petitioner was seized by police and hence, he filed a revision against the order. Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and crime was registered after filing of the revision. Therefore, the revision was withdrawn and this petition is filed for anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on investigation, it is revealed that the vehicle belonged to petitioner and it was being used for transportation of illicit liquor and hence, petitioner is implicated as accused in the crime. The 1st accused was arrested. Petitioner along with three others are engaged in distillation of illicit arrack and BA 6658/08 -2- transportation of the same. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner which are recorded as such in paragraph 3 do not disclose any special circumstances to invoke provision contained under section 438 Cr.P.C. Crime was registered as early as on 3-7-2008 and petitioner could not be arrested so far. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.