Loading...

E.J.Roy vs State – Excise Range Officer on 16 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
E.J.Roy vs State – Excise Range Officer on 16 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4304 of 2007()


1. E.J.ROY, S/O KUNHUKUNHU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE - EXCISE RANGE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :16/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                   R.BASANT, J

                         ------------------------------------

                              B.A.No.4304 of 2007

                         -------------------------------------

                     Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007


                                       ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner along with two

co-accused was allegedly involved in the illicit activity of distillation of

liquor. The alleged incident took place on 23.08.06. When the excise

party reached the scene, the petitioner along with the 3rd accused

allegedly took to his heels and could not be apprehended. The 1st

accused was arrested. The seizure mahazar and the occurrence

report show the presence and involvement of the petitioner. The

petitioner could not be arrested. The co-accused have already been

arrested and enlarged on bail. Investigation is in progress. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has been unnecessarily arrayed

as an accused. The 1st accused had furnished false and incorrect

information to the police implicating the petitioner in an attempt to

save his real associates. The petitioner’s mother is seriously ill. She

is paralysed. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be

granted to the petitioner, it is submitted.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits

that the investigation is already complete. Final report has already

been filed. The petitioner need only appear before the learned

B.A.No.4304 of 2007 2

Magistrate and seek bail now. There are no circumstances justifying

the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in

the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied,

is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating

Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. The

final report having already been filed, the petitioner can certainly

appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail. I have no reason

to assume that his application for bail may not be considered by the

learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously.

5. The submission that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated by the 1st accused and that the petitioner is entitled to

anticipatory bail because of the illness of his mother do not at all find

favour with me in the facts and circumstances of this case.

6. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed.

Needless to say, 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/-

B.A.No.4304 of 2007 3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information