IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7305 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.2266/2008 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.2: --------------------------------- THAMPI MANJOORAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MANJOORAN HOUSE, CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7305 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120(B) IPC and 58, 57A and 57 of Kerala Abkari Act. According to prosecution, a vehicle was found capsized into a property and a person was found sleeping in the vehicle. He was removed to the hospital. He was the driver of the vehicle (A1). On questioning, it was revealed that he had supplied 8 cans of spirit to his toddy shop of the third accused and hence, he is implicated as accused no.3. It was also revealed that the vehicle and the spirit, which were found in the vehicle, belonged to the 2nd accused, who is petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner (A2) submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. As per the present allegation, the vehicle used for transportation of the contraband articles belonging to petitioner. But, this fact is virtually denied by petitioner. According to him, no seizure was effected from his house and if at all, any documents are available revealing an alleged seizure, those are concocted. It is pointed out that such documents are not produced before the Magistrate Court so far. It is also pointed out that as per the seizure mahazar, recorded on the BA No.7305 /2008 2 same day of incident, it is mentioned that a search was conducted in the house of the petitioner on the same day of the incident. But, it is not revealed that whether any articles were seized from petitioner's house. The attempt is only to concoct evidence against petitioner and to falsely implicate him, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that on investigation, it is revealed that the relevant vehicle belongs to petitioner and the RC book and the insurance policy relating to the vehicle were seized from the house of petitioner on the very next day of the incident, on a search conducted in his house. It is also pointed out that that number of the vehicle was changed and what was exhibited on the vehicle was some other number. This was done with a view to mislead the investigation, it is submitted. But, on investigation, it is clearly revealed that the vehicle which was used for transportation of the contraband article belongs to the petitioner and he has no explanation for the use of his vehicle for illicit transportation of the contraband articles. It is also submitted that as per the information received, petitioner is involved in crime no.161/07 of Mala Police Station. He will be implicated as an accused in that case also. As per the instructions given, petitioner is the person who is supplying spirit illegally to various persons in Ernakulam District and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. BA No.7305 /2008 3 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned public prosecutor. The latches, if any, in the investigation or the omissions on the part of the investigators in producing mahazar before the Magistrate Court without delay may not by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. On a perusal of the case diary, I am satisfied that prima facie there are materials against petitioner implicating him in an offence of this nature. Hence, considering the nature of allegations made and the investigation required, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 13.9.2008 and petitioner is required for interrogation, to ascertain the materials which are within his exclusive knowledge. Except by interrogation, it will be difficult for the Investigating Officer to find out such facts in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl