IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6379 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.236/08 OF PULIKKEZHU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MANOJ KUMAR.P.G. AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THEKKETHELLIKKUZHIYIL, THATTAKKAD, KOIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, PULIKKEZHU, THIRUVALLA. 2. 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 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6379 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a) and (i) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner along with second and the third accused, transported 350 litres of spirit in a car. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime and he is the R.C. owner of the vehicle, at whose connivance and with knowledge, the contraband article was transported. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and as per the instructions, he transferred the vehicle. But, the document relating to transfer is not available and hence, he is not pressing this petition, it is submitted. It is also submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that huge quantity of spirit is involved in this case and petitioner has definite involvement in the crime. Petitioner is required for investigation. The crime was registered as early as on 4.10.2008 and he is not available for interrogation. BA No. 6379 /2008 2 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner was not available for interrogation and if the petition is dismissed, it is likely that he will abscond and he will not co-operate with investigation. In the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner's interrogation is required for the purpose of an effective investigation. Hence, I am not inclined to grant permission to withdraw this petition. At the stage of investigation, a duty is caste upon the court also to see that the person who evades law, surrenders to law. When the court is satisfied that an accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail, the court is duty-bound to issue a direction to him to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, respondent is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl