IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7934 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.146/07 OF PERUMBETTY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ----------------------------- 1. PRASANNA SASIDHARAN, W/O. LATE SASIDHARAN, AWD NO.II, CHUNGAPPARA, KOTTANGAL MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-686547. 2. K.S. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANIYATTU HOUSE, KALLOOPPARA, MALLAPPALLY, PIN-689583. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.LAKSHMY RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, PERUMBETTY POLICE STATION, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 7934 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 and 3. They face allegations under the Essential Commodities Act. The crux of the allegations is that accused No.2 - the licensee and accused No.3 - the Salesman of the licensee, were involved in an attempt to clandestinely remove ration rice which was entrusted to the 2nd accused as the Authorised Wholesale Dealer. The vehicle driven by the 1st accused carried 105 bags of ration rice. When intercepted, the 1st accused admitted that the consignment was loaded from the premises of the 2nd accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the consignment comprised of ration rice. The detection was on 14/12/07. The 1st accused has been arrested and enlarged on bail. Investigation is in progress. B.A. No. 7934 OF 2007 -: 2 :- The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. It is the case of the prosecution that ration rice from the premises of the licensee – A2, used to be carried to the shop of the 5th accused clandestinely for sale in black market. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The learned counsel relies on the inspection of the premises conducted by the officials of the Civil Supplies Department on 15/12/07, the seizure having taken place on 14/12/07. When they inspected the premises, it is contended that there was only negligible difference in stock of 10 Kgs. of rice. It is hence contended that the consignment carried in the lorry of the 1st accused did not belong to the petitioners at all. It is submitted that the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and incarceration. Anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions, may be granted to the petitioners, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that satisfactory materials have been collected to show that the consignment which was intercepted and seized by the police was carried by the 1st accused from the premises of the 2nd accused to that of B.A. No. 7934 OF 2007 -: 3 :- the 5th accused. The statement given by the 1st accused at the time of detection as also the materials collected thereafter indicate this fact satisfactorily, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the premises of the 2nd accused was kept under surveillance, the Civil Supplies Officials had, ignoring the objections of the policemen on duty, entered the premises on 15/12/07 and made certain records to show that there was only negligible shortage of 10 Kgs. of rice without wanting for the presence of the police officials while conducting such inspection. Action has been initiated against the Civil Supplies Officials, who, according to the police, had acted in hand in glove with the petitioners to destroy the evidence and to create evidence in favour of the petitioners. 4. Be that as it may, it is not necessary now to go into that controversy at all. Even the fact that all the records have been manipulated prior to the removal of the articles from the premises of the licensee is by itself no defence in this prosecution. In these circumstances, even assuming that the records of the licensee did not reveal any shortage in stock, it does not necessarily follow that the consignment was not B.A. No. 7934 OF 2007 -: 4 :- removed from the premises of the 2nd accused. 5. In the nature of the contentions, the Case Diary was directed to be placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the materials collected do indicate satisfactorily that the consignment carried by the 1st accused as driver in the vehicle of the 5th accused was loaded from the premises of the 2nd accused and was being carried to the premises of the 5th accused. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on merits on the disputed questions. Suffice it to say that I am unable to agree that the allegations are so bereft of merit that the petitioners deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the normal and ordinary course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary and usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the B.A. No. 7934 OF 2007 -: 5 :- Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek 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