IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1089 of 2008()
1. ABDUL KAREEM POKU, PALATHINKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.1089 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner
apprehends arrest on the allegation that he has committed
offences punishable under the Customs Act. Interim directions
were issued and the petitioner had made himself available for
interrogation before the investigating officer. The learned
counsel for the respondent submits that investigation has not
been completed and the petitioner is required to be arrested
now.
2. According to the learned counsel for the respondent,
the petitioner, who was allegedly employed abroad in a rent a
car firm, has imported a very costly car into India. The
petitioner has not explained his source for importing the car nor
has he explained the source from which he was able to pay the
duty payable in respect of the vehicle. The respondent suspects
tampering with the engine number and the chasis number of the
car. It is suspected that the petitioner is also one of the persons
who are made use of by some others for illicit import into India
of cars in the name of persons like the petitioners. More
detailed investigation is necessary. At this stage, the petitioner
B.A.No.1089/08 2
may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of
anticipatory bail. He may be permitted to surrender before the
investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent. If at all there be any impropriety
regarding the import of the car, proceedings can be initiated
under the Customs Act and penalty, if any, may be imposed.
There is absolutely no necessity to insist on the arrest and
incarceration of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the
petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
willing to co-operate with the investigating officers. His arrest
and detention is not necessary. Appropriate directions may be
issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C, it is submitted.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival
contestants. I find merit in the opposition by the learned
counsel for the respondent. The respondent is entitled for an
adequate opportunity to conduct a complete an exhaustive
investigation about the circumstances under which chasis and
engine numbers are suspected to be tampered. Respondent is
B.A.No.1089/08 3
entitled to probe into the question why and under what
circumstances the petitioner has imported the vehicle into India.
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am
satisfied 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.
6. 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.1089/08 4
B.A.No.1089/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007