IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3730 of 2007()
1. VIKRAMAN, AGED 40, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JAISON JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.3730 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused.
The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner transported 18 litres
of Indian made Foreign Liquor in a vehicle driven by the 1st accused.
The petitioner was not available in that vehicle. The 1st accused was
intercepted and the seizure was effected. The transportation was
done by the 1st accused on behalf of the petitioner. This in short is the
allegation. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. Investigation
is in progress. The 1st accused has been arrested and has been
released on bail. The alleged incident took place on 21.05.2007.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
seizure was effected from the possession of the petitioner and that the
theory that the transportation by the 1st accused was on behalf of the
petitioner is without any basis. Counsel further submits that at any
rate the decision in Sabu v. State of Kerala [2003(2) KLT 173] must
help the petitioner to contend that the offence under Section 55(a) of
the Kerala Abkari Act will not be revealed from the alleged facts.
3. The application is opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor . Interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary.
There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the discretion
under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .
B.A.No.3730 of 2007 2
4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor . At this early stage, it is not necessary to consider the
possible defences in detail. I am certainly of the opinion that in the
interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation, the
petitioner need not be armed with an order of anticipatory bail at this
stage. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate
and seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. All contentions
including the contention on the basis of Sabu v. State of Kerala
(supra) can be urged by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate.
5. With the above observations, this application is, dismissed.
Needless to say that if the petitioner appears before 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 and expeditiously – on
the date of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-