IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6361 of 2007()
1. V.V.RAJEEVAN,AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/10/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 6361 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007
O R D E R
Application anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations
under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the
provisions of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order. The crux of the
allegations against the petitioner is that he was allegedly found to
keep in his possession 795 litres of kerosene in a house. On seeing
the police party, he allegedly took to his heels and could not be
apprehended. The seizure mahazar as well as the F.I.R. registered
clearly indicate the complicity of the petitioner. He is referred to as
the one who had ran away from the scene.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to the petitioner he
resides in another house and the house, from where recovery is
effected, is not that of the petitioner.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner resides in that
house. Even according to the prosecution it is an unoccupied house
belonging to some other person. Investigation is in progress. The
B.A.No. 6361 of 2007
2
petitioner has to be interrogated. There is absolutely no justification to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submits the learned Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I shall carefully avoid
any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegation
raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am
unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation
of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in
favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the
petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing
before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and
then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge
B.A.No. 6361 of 2007
3