IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6574 of 2007()
1. N.G.SURENDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 40
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/11/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.6574 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is arrayed
as the first accused. Altogether there are three accused persons.
They face allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. The police
allegedly received information about the transportation of illicit
liquor in a vehicle. Attempt was made to stop the vehicle. The
vehicle was not stopped. The vehicle sped away. The police
attempted to chase the vehicle. After a long chase, the driver
and cleaner who were present in the vehicle abandoned the
vehicle and took to their heels. Their identity could not be
ascertained at the spot. 210 x 35 litres of spirit were allegedly
available in the vehicle. The vehicle and the contraband article
was seized on 21/10/2006. F.I.R was registered. In the F.I.R,
there is no clue about the identity of the driver and the cleaner.
The driver is arrayed as the first accused and the cleaner as the
second accused. Later the investigation has revealed the
identity of the owner, a person having his address at Bangalore.
He is absconding. He has not been arrested so far.
B.A.No6574./07 2
2. Though at the scene, no clue could be gathered about
the identity of the first accused/driver or the second
accused/cleaner, in the course of investigation, the investigator
was able to trace a witness who had seen the petitioner running
away from the vehicle when it was intercepted. That person
gave the name of the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle.
Further investigation continued in that direction. The house of
the petitioner was searched and in such search, certain
documents relating to the vehicle were seized from the house of
the petitioner. It is, therefore, that the petitioner was arrayed as
the first accused. Investigation is continuing. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with
the crime in question. He is being vexed and harassed
unnecessarily now. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the name of the petitioner is not shown in the
contemporaneous document or in the F.I.R. In these
circumstances, the subsequent raising of allegations against the
petitioner is not justified, contends the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
B.A.No6574./07 3
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that two
important inputs have been collected against the petitioner.
One is the statement of a witness at the scene of the crime, who
was traced lateron. He stated that the petitioner was one of the
persons who ran away from the vehicle. Another input available
is a document relating to the vehicle recovered from the house of
the petitioner. These two circumstances compellingly direct the
needle of suspicion at the petitioner. He has to be arrested and
interrogated. Such interrogation is absolutely necessary for a
proper investigation of the crime. The petitioner may not, in
these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. I shall avoid any detailed discussion on merits about
the acceptability of the allegation or the credibility of the data
collected. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that there are no
circumstances available in this case which would justify the
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. I am dissatisfied with the tardy progress
made by the investigator in this crime detected as early as on
21/10/2006. This is a fit case where the petitioner must appear
before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and
B.A.No6574./07 4
ordinary course. I am unable to accept the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the name
of the miscreants is not shown in the F.I.R or in the seizure
mahazer, the subsequent ascertainment of the name of the
petitioner as one who ran away from the scene of the crime must
be discarded at this stage.
6. 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
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No6574./07 5
B.A.No6574./07 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007