IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7866 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRLMC.2035/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.785/2007 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- K.L.CHACKO, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN, `KAITHARAM HOUSE', MALA PALLIPURAM P.O., KADUNGALLUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.A.MINA SRI.JOSHY THOMAS SRI.A.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, C.I. OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.7866 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that 3905 litres of spirit was brought by the second accused in a vehicle to the scene of the crime at the instance of the first accused. The consignment was intended to be distributed to many others. At the scene when the consignment reached, there were some other vehicles and the police assumed that these vehicles might have come to the scene for the purpose of collection of portions of the consignment for onward transmission to their destination. On receipt of prior discreet information, the police party had reached the scene, intercepted the vehicles which were available there as also some of the accused. Some of the accused took to their heels and could not be apprehended. Seizure took place on 16/8/2007. Investigation is in progress. One of the vehicles which was available there at the scene belongs to the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner must have been responsible for the transportation for the subsequent taking away of the portion of the consignment for himself to his destination. B.A.No.7866/08 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except that the petitioner was a former owner of the vehicle and continues to be the registered owner, there is absolutely no material to implicate the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has already given his vehicle on rent to some other persons and such other persons must have brought the vehicle to the scene of the crime. At any rate, the petitioner has no responsibility whatsoever for the transportation of the spirit to the place where it was recovered. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigator so far has not been able to collect any materials to show that the petitioner has any involvement in the transportation of the spirit concerned. Except that he happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle, no other materials have been collected so far, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has to be interrogated closely. His connections have to be ascertained. It will have to be verified whether he has any nexus with the transportation as he is the owner of the vehicle. He has been arrayed as the eighth accused. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and co-operate with the investigating officer . He will be arrested and proceeded against only if materials are B.A.No.7866/08 3 collected in the course of his interrogation to connect him with the crime. The petitioner need not apprehend any vexatious action against him. The petitioner may not however be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage. The mystery of the crime remains unresolved even now, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that there are no features in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.7866/08 4 B.A.No.7866/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007