IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 341 of 2009()
1. K.K.RAJAN, S/O.KARAPPU, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.341 OF 2009
--------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471, 420
of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner forged delivery
notes and seals and used them for clandestine transportation
of arecanuts to defeat the liability under the Kerala General
Sales Tax Act. Petitioner is the first accused.
3. The crime was registered as early as on 01.02.2008.
Petitioner filed an application earlier for anticipatory bail
before this court and it was dismissed as per Annexure C order
(order dated 29.04.2008 in B.A.No.2385 of 2008) and it was
observed therein, thus :
” 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. ”
B.A.No.341 of 2009
2
4. Petitioner did not surrender before the court or before
the Investigating Officer so far. The crime was registered more
than a year back. Petitioner is required for interrogation and
for the purpose of investigation. There is absolutely no reason
why he evaded law and failed to surrender to law. I am
satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
This court has already observed in Annexure C order that
there are no features in this case which would justify
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to review the said
order. Petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail and there
is absolutely no reason to entertain this petition.
On hearing both sides, the following order is passed :
i) Petitioner shall forthwith surrender before
the Investigating Officer and co-operate with
the investigation. Whether he surrenders or
not, Investing Officer is at liberty to arrest
him and proceed in accordance with law.
B.A.No.341 of 2009
3
ii) No further application for anticipatory bail
by petitioner in this crime will be entertained
by this court.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac