Dinesh vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 14 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 182 of 2008()


1. DINESH, S/O.NANU, PAZHAUIDATHU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :14/01/2008

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.182 of 2008
                       -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008

                                   ORDER

Application for regular bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2.

They were allegedly persons who transported 2385 litres of spirit

in different cans in a secret chamber in a lorry. Accused 1 is the

driver and the 2nd accused is a person who accompanied the

driver. They were allegedly involved in the illicit import and

transportation of spirit to and within the State of Kerala. The

petitioners were arrested on 01.12.07. Investigation is in

progress. Higher links in the illicit transactions are being traced

one after the other. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners

continue in custody from 01.12.07.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are innocent. At any rate, they, who have

remained in custody from 01.12.07, may now be enlarged on

bail, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

application. Investigation is not complete. The available

indications clearly point to the complicity of the petitioners. It is

B.A.No.182 of 2008 2

not as though the petitioners were innocently transporting the

said quantity of liquor. The case diary reveals the culpable

involvement of the petitioners. They are fully involved in the

illicit transaction. At any rate, the petitioners may not be

enlarged on bail at this early stage of investigation, submits the

learned Public Prosecutor .

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public

Prosecutor. I have considered all the relevant inputs and I am

not persuaded to invoke the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C

in favour of the petitioners at this stage. I agree with the

learned Public Prosecutor that the investigators in a serious

crime like this must be given reasonable time to complete the

investigation.

5. This application for regular bail is, in these

circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the

petitioners shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at

a later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to

28.01.08. The investigators must in the meantime make every

endeavour to complete the investigation.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

B.A.No.182 of 2008 3