IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7869 of 2009 CRIME NO.172 OF 2009 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- FAIZAL P.R., AGED 27 YEARS, SON OF SHRI RAHAMATHULLA, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE P.O.ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 122. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUKAVU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON 29/01/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7869 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.172 of 2009 of Melukavu Police Station, Kottayam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 353 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 04.07.2009 at 4.30 A.M., the Intelligence Officer (IB), Intelligence Squad of the Commercial Taxes Department, Thodupuzha and the inspectors were conducting vehicle checking at Muttom. A Tata Mini Lorry bearing Registration No. KL 9 Q 8040 was directed to be stopped. It is stated that the Lorry was having full load of live chicken. The driver of the vehicle did not stop. He drove the vehicle in high speed towards Melukavu direction. The officers of the Commercial Taxes informed the Melukavu Police Station over phone. Some police men tried to intercept the Mini Lorry. But the B.A. NO. 7869 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Mini Lorry was not stopped. The road is a ghat road and on one side of the road, it is a deep valley. Another vehicle, namely, a Mahindra Scorpio car bearing Registration No. KL07/AX 837 overtook the Department vehicle. Thereafter, the Scorpio car was driven in a zigzag manner so as to prevent the Department Jeep from overtaking the Mini Lorry. The Mini Lorry could thus escape from the inspection by the officers of the Commercial Taxes Department. 4. The allegation is that the petitioner was driving the Scorpio car in a zigzag manner to prevent the jeep belonging to the Department of Commercial Taxes from intercepting the miny lorry. On 7.7.2009, the Intelligence Officer (IB), Commercial Taxes, Idukki at Thodupuzha submitted a detailed petition to the Station House Officer, Melukavu Police Station. The FIR was accordingly registered. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner is the owner of the Scorpio car. I have carefully perused the case diary. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioner was in possession B.A. NO. 7869 OF 2009 :: 3 :: of the Scorpio car. As per the agreement dated 16.2.2009, the petitioner had purchased the vehicle from one Kunjumon. The registered owner of the vehicle was one Anil Thomas. Kunjumon was possessing the vehicle. The investigating officer had collected materials to indicate that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle. 6. While disposing of an application for anticipatory bail, meticulous analysis of the facts of the case and the contentions of the parties is not required to be made. It is also not necessary to arrive at any finding on the merits of the contentions of the parties, unconnected with the question as to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If any finding or observation is made touching upon the merits of the contentions, it would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence. 7. The allegations levelled against the accused persons are very grave in nature. The question whether the petitioner is guilty of the offence is not a matter to be considered at this juncture. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there are materials to indicate that the B.A. NO. 7869 OF 2009 :: 4 :: petitioner is involved in the offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/