IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4522 of 2008 ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 514/2004 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION) .................. PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SANOJ, S/O.SKARIA, NAYIKATTY, NOOLPUZHA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL. RESPONDENT/ STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLICE STATION- THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4522 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the second accused in the crime. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and two others were transporting 700 litres of rectified spirit. The petitioner ran away on seeing the police and he could not be arrested. A crime was registered under Sections 8(1) and (2) and 58 of Abkari Act and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Rectified Spirit Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police is searching for the petitioner to arrest him. He is ready to appear before the court below and hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. 4. Anticipatory bail is not intended to be granted in favour of any person who may apprehend arrest. The mere apprehension of arrest will not be sufficient to invoke Section 438 Crl.P.C. The court must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section BA No.4522/08 2 438 Crl.P.C. and it can be invoked only if the court is justified, the facts and circumstances of the case, to do so. 5. This is a case where the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail as early as in 2005 as BA No.7121/2005 before this Court. This Court, as per order dated 6.12.2005 observed in that application that if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate court and files petition for regular bail sufficiently early, and serves a copy to the prosecutor-in-charge, the Magistrate shall hear and dispose of the application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably on the date of surrender itself. It was also found by this Court that it is not just and proper to grant pre-arrest bail in a case of this nature. 6. There is absolutely no reason to come to a different finding now, after lapse of about more than 2½ years. The petitioner has also not availed of the benefit extended to him by this Court by giving a direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application. Despite lapse of above 2½ years, (the earlier order was passed as early as on 6.12.2005) the petitioner did not surrender before the Magistrate court. The charge sheet was laid BA No.4522/08 3 on 30.4.2005 and the petitioner was shown as an absconding accused, it is submitted by learned public prosecutor. So, in all probabilities, non bailable warrant should have been issued to the petitioner but this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner during these proceedings. It is only probable that he would be aware of issuance of warrant. 5. In the above circumstances, I find that there is absolutely no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner who is an absconder who evaded proceedings of the court for four long years after registration of the crime in 2004. He also did not avail himself during investigation. I am of further view that even the benefit extended to petitioner thereunder as per the direction in the earlier anticipatory bail application need not be extended to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl