IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 341 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.54/2008 OF TRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- K.K.RAJAN, S/O.KARAPPU, AGED 41 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, CHALISSERY, PROPRIETOR, B.S.SUPARAI, KADAVALLUR, CHALISSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.341 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner forged delivery notes and seals and used them for clandestine transportation of arecanuts to defeat the liability under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Petitioner is the first accused. 3. The crime was registered as early as on 01.02.2008. Petitioner filed an application earlier for anticipatory bail before this court and it was dismissed as per Annexure C order (order dated 29.04.2008 in B.A.No.2385 of 2008) and it was observed therein, thus : “ Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. ” B.A.No.341 of 2009 2 4. Petitioner did not surrender before the court or before the Investigating Officer so far. The crime was registered more than a year back. Petitioner is required for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation. There is absolutely no reason why he evaded law and failed to surrender to law. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. This court has already observed in Annexure C order that there are no features in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to review the said order. Petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail and there is absolutely no reason to entertain this petition. On hearing both sides, the following order is passed : i) Petitioner shall forthwith surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, Investing Officer is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. B.A.No.341 of 2009 3 ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac