High Court Kerala High Court

Vignesh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Vignesh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7123 of 2008()


1. VIGNESH BABU, S/O. T.K. MADHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DEVAKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :04/12/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.
                    ---------------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.7123 of 2008
                    ---------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 4th December, 2008


                                  O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act.

Petitioners are accused nos.4 and 6 in the crime. As per the

prosecution case, on 25.6.2008, at about 10 a.m., accused no.1 was

found transporting 6080 litres of spirit in a lorry through National

Highway. The first accused was arrested from the spot. On

questioning the first accused, he confessed that the spirit was

brought for the purpose of accused nos. 2 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that he may

be permitted to withdraw this petition. Learned public prosecutor

pointed out that petitioner had made the same submission earlier

also and the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as

withdrawn at his request as per order dated 7.10.2008 in

B.A.No.5588/08 (vide Annexure A2). It is also submitted that

mobile phone call details of petitioners and that of the first accused

clearly reveal their connection between each other. The crime was

registered as early as on 25.6.2008 and the investigation could not

be completed so far since petitioners have not co-operated

with investigation.

BA No.7123/2008 2

4. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure

A2 order, I find that I had given direction to the petitioners to

surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with

investigation and make themselves available for interrogation.

This order was passed as early as on 7.10.2008 but, petitioners

have not complied with the direction. I am satisfied that the

intention of petitioners is to abscond and to evade the process of

law. It is the duty of the Court to see that the person who evades

law surrenders to law. I am not inclined to issue any direction in

favour of petitioners since they have disobeyed the direction issued

by the Court. I am also satisfied that on the facts of the case, it is

not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before

the Investigating Officer within three days from

today and co-operate with investigation. Whether they

surrender or not police is at liberty to arrest them and

proceed against them in accordance with law.

It is also made clear that no further anticipatory bail

application from the petitioners will be entertained.

With this direction, petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl