IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 962 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.92/07 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SURENDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ANANDAN, KARINDARAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE KATHURAPPARAMBU, VAYATHOOR VILLAGE P.O. AARADI, KANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 962 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly transporting 10 litres of arrack in a jeep belonging to him on 18/7/07. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is known to the detecting officer. The detecting officer received prior information of the alleged transportation of arrack by the petitioner in the vehicle. Signal was shown to stop the vehicle; but the vehicle was not stopped. It sped away. The detecting officer chased the vehicle. The petitioner ultimately abandoned the vehicle and ran away. 10 litres of arrack (100 packets x 100 ml.) were available in the vehicle. The vehicle belongs to the petitioner. He is the registered owner. Though the incident took place on 18/7/07, the petitioner has not been B.A. No. 962 OF 2008 -: 2 :- arrested so far. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The identification of the petitioner by the Investigating Officer is too unsatisfactory. At any rate, the petitioner may at this stage be given anticipatory bail. The incident had taken place on 18/7/07 and the investigation has progressed considerably by now. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is an accused in more than one earlier arrack case. The detecting officer was hence able to identify the petitioner very easily. Moreover, the vehicle in which the contraband article was found was abandoned by the petitioner and the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. There is no motive even alleged against the detecting officer as to why he foisted a false case against the petitioner. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor prays that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find B.A. No. 962 OF 2008 -: 3 :- merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before 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