IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1488 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.152/08 IN ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- THOMASKUTTY EAPEN, KOCHUPURACKAL RICE, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.1488 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under the Essential Commodities Act read with the Kerala Rationing Order. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that ration rice was unauthorisedly brought to be unloaded in his shop in a lorry belonging to him. The local people grew suspicious and intercepted the vehicle. The officials of the Civil Supplies Department were informed. They came to the scene of the crime. The driver of the vehicle took to his heels. The shop which is situated nearby was closed and nobody was available in the shop to do any explanation. In the vehicle, 36 bags of rice were available. The invoice to purportedly explain the transport was also available in the vehicle. B.A. No.1488 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. It is the case of the police that the rice in question is ration rice which must have been collected clandestinely from the AWDs or ARDs. The police are not, at the moment, able to specify the source from which such ration rice must have been collected. They have collected materials to show that the rice in question is identical to the rice that is supplied by the FCI for distribution though the Public Distribution System. The bags were not those of FCI. It is the case of the police that the ration rice was packed into other bags to masquerade the real transaction. The detection was made on 22/2/08. On the same day the seizure was effected. But the crime was registered later on on 26/2/08 on the complaint by the official of the Civil Supplies Department. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner is a bona fide dealer in grains. This consignment was purchased by him as per the original of Annexure-V from a supplier by name Associated Trading Company. There was no offence committed in dealing such rice. In these circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. B.A. No.1488 of 2008 -: 3 :- 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that Annexure-V does not at all relate to consignment which was available in the vehicle. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, Annexure-V relates to boiled rice; whereas the consignment was raw rice. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle as also the proprietor of the shop. The police contend that there was contumacious responsibility for the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had run away from the scene and had not waited to offer any explanation. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that the petitioner has got to be interrogated closely and exhaustively for the purpose of bringing out the truth. The needle of suspicion is strongly directed at the petitioner and at this stage there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The totality of the circumstances must arouse very serious suspicion in a prudent mind against the petitioner. The petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail. In these circumstances, he may be directed to co-operate with the B.A. No.1488 of 2008 -: 4 :- Investigator and to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed before me the Case Diary for my perusal. I have gone through the same in detail. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am persuaded to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the needle of suspicion is strongly directed at the petitioner and there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must co-operate with the Investigator and appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and seek regular bail, if arrested. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the B.A. No.1488 of 2008 -: 5 :- Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge