IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 776 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 399/06 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION PETIITONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ---------------------------------------- CHARLY @ STARLY, S/O.VASU THOPPIL HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 776 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime which has been registered, inter alia, for offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act and Sections 332 and 307 I.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations is that on 27.6.2006 accused 1 and 2 were carrying contraband liquor in a vehicle. That vehicle was intercepted. An attempt was made to knock down the police officials. The detecting S.I. held on to the vehicle. He was attacked by accused 1 and 2 and he was attempted to be thrown off the vehicle. He succeeded in bringing the vehicle to stop, but both the accused persons allegedly ran away from the scene of the crime. The vehicle and the contraband liquor were seized. 68 bottles of illicit liquor, each containing 1.5 litres, was available in the vehicle. The second accused was known to the Investigating Officer as he is allegedly a notorious criminal of B.A.No. 776 of 2008 2 the locality. Crime was thus registered. Investigation continued. The second accused was later apprehended. It was revealed that the transportation of liquor was in pursuance of the meeting of minds and collusion of accused 1 to 5. The petitioner is the 4th accused. He was also allegedly responsible for the transportation of the liquor. All other accused have been arrested. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with the illicit transportation of liquor. The second accused, who has been arrested, has evidently given false information about the complicity of the petitioner. In these circumstances he may be saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention. He is willing to co-operate with the Investigators. It is further submitted that the petitioner had, shortly prior to the incident, suffered an injury rendering it improbable that he would have had any role in the transportation of the liquor. In these circumstances anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. B.A.No. 776 of 2008 3 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. He vehemently opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The available indications clinchingly point to the complicity of the petitioner in the transaction. It is true that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner was personally present when the transportation was taking place. The learned Prosecutor submits that the Investigating Officer now relies on the confession statement of the co-accused heavily to draw inference about the culpability of the petitioner. He has to be interrogated for a proper and effective completion of the investigation. At any rate, the petitioner does not deserve to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage, submits the Prosecutor. 5. The case diary has been placed before me. I have perused the same. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must B.A.No. 776 of 2008 4 resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm