High Court Kerala High Court

T.P.Siddique vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
T.P.Siddique vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6507 of 2007()


1. T.P.SIDDIQUE, AGED 34 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :30/10/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.
                            ----------------------
                     B.A.Nos.6507 & 6508 of 2007
                      ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 30th day of October 2007

                                 O R D E R

These applications are for anticipatory bail. The petitioners

apprehend arrest as accused in crime No.19/04 of Mattanchery police

station registered inter alia under Section 468 I.P.C.

2. The de facto complainant, a trader, was served with a

notice of demand. Under such notice, huge amounts were demanded

from him. He realised then that articles were transported from the

State of Kerala to the State of Karnataka using forged delivery notes,

N forms and invoices in the name of the de facto complainant. The

crime was registered as early as on 6/1/2004. The investigation did

not make any progress. It is, at that stage, the present Circle

Inspector of Police has taken charge and he has started conducting

the investigation. His investigation has revealed that lorry loads were

conveyed in vehicles belonging to the petitioners herein from Kerala

to Karnataka using the forged documents in respect of the de facto

complainant. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused now. The

petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are only owners of vehicles.

They drive their vehicles also. They have nothing to do with the

forgery of the documents. They have no role to play in the alleged

B.A.No.6507 & 6508/07 2

illicit transportation of consignments from Kerala to Karnataka. They

are innocent drivers. They cannot be mulcted with knowledge or

responsibility for the nature of the documents used by the consignors

or consignees in the vehicle. In these circumstances, the petitioners

may be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation reveals

the complicity of the petitioners. They are owners of the vehicles. It

is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioners are drivers as well. Vehicles were used for illicit

transportation making use of the forged documents in the name of the

de facto complainant. All present indications point to the complicity

of the petitioners. They will have to be arrested and interrogated. If

they give satisfactory explanation, there is no reason why such

explanation will not be accepted. At any rate, the petitioners may not,

at this stage of the investigation be permitted to arm themselves with

an order of anticipatory bail. Such course would hamper the smooth

course of investigation. The investigation has to take strides ahead.

No breakthrough has been made in the investigation so far. In these

circumstances, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail,

submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

B.A.No.6507 & 6508/07 3

5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find

merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am

satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify

invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438

Cr.P.C. 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 ordinary course.

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.No.6507 & 6508/07    4

B.A.No.6507 & 6508/07    5

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007