IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5729 of 2007(H)
1. HASHIM, CHERKALA, CHERKALA VILLAGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.5729 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the
second accused. The crux of the allegations is that the first
accused was apprehended with 300 x 100 ml of Karnataka arrack
in packets. The first accused on interrogation furnished
information to the investigating officer about the complicity of
the petitioner herein. The petitioner/second accused is allegedly
the person who used to furnish contraband liquor to the first
accused for local sales. The quantity allegedly seized was also
obtained from the petitioner herein, it is alleged.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations are totally false. Except the alleged confession
statement of the first accused, there is no material whatsoever
against the petitioner. The petitioner was hospitalised and was
not even available on the relevant date to supply any contraband
liquor to the first accused. In these circumstances, the
petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The application is opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that at the
B.A.No.5729/07 2
moment and with the available inputs, there is absolutely no
reason to justify the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary
equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner
has to be arrested and interrogated. Further materials have to
be collected. It will be inexpedient and unnecessary to permit
the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at
this stage.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no
features in this case which would justify the invocation of the
extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
There is not even an allegation that the powers of arrest are
about to be invoked with any malicious or oblique motives. I am
satisfied that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. 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
B.A.No.5729/07 3
B.A.No.5729/07 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007