IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3715 of 2009 CRIME NO.22 OF 2009 OF EXCISE RANGE, NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- AJITH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, NEAR SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, UDAYAGIRI, MELEMOOD, PERINGANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3715 OF 2009 F ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.22 of 2009 of Neyyattinkara Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 55 (a) and 58 of the Abkari Act. 3. On 12.5.2009 at 1.30 PM, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Neyyattinkara intercepted a mini lorry, bearing Registration No.TN.43- 8850. It was found that in a secret chamber of the lorry, a quantity of 825 litres of spirit was stored in 25 plastic cans. The petitioner was driving the vehicle. He was arrested. On the application made to the court, the petitioner was allowed to be interrogated in the presence of the Jail Superintendent. The petitioner was interrogated. The statement thus recorded is not seen in the case diary. 4. I have perused the case diary. It would appear that the petitioner stated that he was working under one Palaniswami. On B.A. NO. 3715 OF 2009 :: 2 :: verification of the registration number of the vehicle in question, it was revealed that the vehicle belonged to one Saravanan. It would also appear that Saravanan stated that he had sold the vehicle to Palaniswami. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had given the correct address of Palaniswami to the Excise Officials. The CD file discloses that one Excise Guard was deputed to go to Madurai and to enquire about Palaniswami. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the petitioner was working under Palaniswami and he had taken the lorry to Neendakara, as directed by Palaniswami. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that spirit was kept concealed in the lorry. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that he was unaware of the offence is not correct and that the investigation has revealed that he had taken up such assignments even earlier. The offence is a very serious one. The investigation has not progressed with the required speed. The CD file shows that on 27.5.2009, the Assistant Excise Commissioner directed the Circle Inspector of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram, to whom the investigation was entrusted, to complete the investigation and to submit final report before Court within 45 days without fail. That period is over. The investigation is not completed so far. All the persons involved in the commission of the B.A. NO. 3715 OF 2009 :: 3 :: crime are not brought to book. The investigating agency does not appear to have made serious efforts to expedite the investigation and to find out the real persons who are involved in this racket. It would appear that the investigating officer is satisfied with the arrest of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor assured that the investigation would be expedited and the real culprits would be brought to book expeditiously. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.5.2009 and if the final report is not filed before sixty days, he is entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is free to move the learned Magistrate for appropriate orders in that regard. 7. It is relevant to note here that had the investigating officer taken urgent steps and expedited the process of investigation, he could have gathered the relevant information while the petitioner is in judicial custody. If the petitioner is released on bail invoking Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, some times, it may affect the smooth investigation of the case. Such a situation could have been avoided if a proper investigation was expeditiously conducted. Offence of such serious nature, which has great impact in the society and the people at large, should be investigated effectively and expeditiously. The lukewarm B.A. NO. 3715 OF 2009 :: 4 :: attitude on the part of the investigating officer was not justifiable. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for appropriate orders, this Bail Application is dismissed with the above observations. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/