IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 904 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED RAFI, S/O. ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 904 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the second
accused. His brother is arrayed as the first accused. The crux of
the allegations is that an autorikshaw carrying 1300 packet of
arrack, each containing 100 ml., was intercepted by the police.
The person driving the vehicle took to his heels and could not be
apprehended. He was the only person available in the
autorikshaw. The contraband article and the vehicle were seized
on 5.1.2007. Investigation revealed that the registered owner of
the vehicle had executed an agreement and transferred the vehicle
to the petitioner on 25.4.2006. The petitioner admits having
become the owner of the autorikshaw on that date, but contends
that the vehicle was transferred by him in favour of another as
per a subsequent agreement dt.11.12.2006. The police is
satisfied that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle, but is
not satisfied that there has been a transfer of the vehicle by the
B.A.No. 904 of 2008
2
petitioner on 11.12.2006. Investigation has led the police to the
conclusion that the petitioner’s brother/A1 was the driver of the
vehicle at the relevant time. The petitioner has been brought on the
array of accused only because he is the owner of the vehicle as per the
agreement in question. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not available in India at the
relevant time at all. The mere fact that some one who, in the absence
of the petitioner, had used the vehicle objectionably should not expose
the petitioner to the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention. He is
willing to co-operate with the investigators. In as much as there is no
allegation even that the petitioner was concerned with the
transportation, he may now be granted anticipatory bail, prays the
learned counsel. He is willing to produce his passport, a copy of which
has been produced along with the application, to confirm that he was
not available in India at the relevant time.
3. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application on
condition that the petitioner may be made available for interrogation.
B.A.No. 904 of 2008
3
He may be directed to co-operate with the investigators, it is prayed.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied, in
the facts and circumstances of this case, that directions under Section
438 Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of
opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater
detail. Subject to appropriate conditions, anticipatory bail can be
granted to the petitioner, I am satisfied.
5. In the result:
(1) This application is allowed.
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate
on 27.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the
petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
(b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 28.2.08
B.A.No. 904 of 2008
4
and 29.2.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty
to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in
connection with the investigation. Thereafter he shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and
12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when
directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.
(c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse
on 27.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the
petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.
(d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on
27.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail
on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.2.2008.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm