IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 25TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3188 of 2011() -------------------------------------- (CR.NO.411/11 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION) ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SANDESH,S/O.SUNDARAMUNDA, NEAR VAMANJUR SCHOOL,KASARAGOD. 2. HAREESHA, S/O.SEKHARAMUNDA, HOSANGADI,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION - 671 121. 2. STATE,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 &R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.3188/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT. ANNEX.II: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 2/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.M.C NO. 3188 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2011. O R D E R Petitioners as per the memorandum, are stated to be accused No. 2 and 3 in Crime No.411 of 2011 of Manjeshwar Police Station for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. In the docket and cause title, they are styled as accused No.1 and 3. However, it is now submitted that the petitioners are accused 2 and 3. As per Annexure-1 First Information Report, on 1.6.2011 at 21.30 hours the Sub Inspector of police, Manjeshwar detected out 1362 bottles each containing 180 ml of Indian made foreign liquor in 3 vehicles, one is a Maruthi Alto car, the second one is Maruthi- 800 and the third is an autorickshaw. The contraband was seized and the case was registered suo motu. The petitioners would now contend that since the bottles containing the contraband were detected from three vehicles, separate cases ought to have been registered. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the first Crl.M.C NO. 3188 OF 2011 2 information report, is grossly irregular, illegal and erroneous. With this plea they sought for quashing Annexure-1 in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Having heard either side and perusing Annexure-I & II, I find that the detecting officer, while on patrol duty found the three accused persons near the three vehicles mentioned earlier. Seeing the detecting officer, the petitioners along with other accused took their heels. Only the first accused was known to the detecting officer. At that time, it was not known as to which of the petitioners was in possession of which vehicle. Therefore, there was no option but to register one case. Connection of the petitioners with the vehicle in which contraband was carried is a matter for investigation. However, I find that the objection now raised is a matter to be considered by the Investigating Officer. In the event of carrying of contraband in different vehicles would constitute distinct offences, it is for the investigating officer to file separate final reports. It is not appropriate for this Court to Crl.M.C NO. 3188 OF 2011 3 interfere at this stage. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that because of the registering of a single case for seizure of liquor from three vehicles, the petitioners had to answer for the entire quantity of the contraband seized from all the three vehicles and the failure to answer the contraband seized from vehicles not belonging to the petitioners would adversely affect the petitioners while moving application for bail. I find that for that purpose no interference can be made by this Court since the petitioners had not so far moved for bail. In the event, the petitioners move for bail, it is for the appropriate court to look in to the first information report, seizure mahazar and the materials subsequently collected during the course of investigation and to dispose the application for bail on merits. The petitioners can urge their contentions while moving bail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also sought for an order directing the Investigating Officer to release the petitioners Crl.M.C NO. 3188 OF 2011 4 on bail in the event of arrest. Since, this petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find that the release of the petitioners on bail can be left open in appropriate proceedings. This petition is devoid of any merit. In the result, the petition is disposed with direction to the respondents to consider the objection raised by the petitioners before filing the final report. In the event, the petitioners apply for bail before the appropriate court, the said court shall take into consideration of the objection now raised and the materials disclosed during the course of the investigation including the identity of the petitioners and the plea that they are not liable to answer for the contraband seized from the vehicles to which the petitioners have no sort of relationship. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mns