Dismissed

Sajimon C.D. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2008Bail Appl./908/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused in a spirit smuggling case. The court held that the facts suggested complicity, making the case fit for interrogation and regular bail rather than anticipatory relief.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; directions for seeking regular bail after surrender and notice.

Sajimon C.D. Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 908 of 2008() ---------------------------CRIME NO.671/01 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER:ACCUSED NO.3

¶7

¶8

SAJIMON C.D., S/O. DEVASSIYA, CHERIVIL HOUSE, PAYYAVUR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R.BASANT, J

¶16

B.A.No.908 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2008

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 4^th accused. Altogether there are 4 accused persons now. 4,095 litres of spirit was being transported in a lorry which stands in the name of the petitioner on 27.10.01. The vehicle was intercepted. The 2^nd accused who was in the vehicle was arrested. The 1^st accused - driver took to his heels and could not be arrested. The petitioner was interrogated. It was revealed that the lorry really belongs to the 2^nd accused, but it was purchased in the name of the petitioner, who obliged by lending his name to be described as the owner of the vehicle. The 3^rd accused is allegedly a person who had entrusted the consignment for transportation and the transportation was meant to be to some other person, whose identity, the learned Public Prosecutor, does not want to reveal now. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The mere fact that he is the registered

¶21

B.A.No.908 of 2008

¶22

¶23

owner should not expose to him to any complicity as he had no direct involvement in the alleged illicit transportation of spirit. At any rate the registered owner of a public goods carriage vehicle should not be made liable for any acts that may be committed by the person to whom the vehicle is entrusted in connection with such business of transportation. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the available indications point clearly to the complicity of the petitioner in the operation of illicit transportation of spirit. At the moment and with the available inputs, the needles of suspicion is pointed at the petitioner. The petitioner must be interrogated exhaustively and there is absolutely no reason to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail now. For a proper and effective investigation, thorough interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am certainly persuaded to find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this

¶26

B.A.No.908 of 2008 3

¶27

case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail.

¶28

This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously.

¶29

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶30

rtr/-

Sajimon C.D. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajimon C.D. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh.M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Intaz Munshi Vs State of Kerala

Jeam Khan @ Sabu Vs S.I. of Police & Others

S.Sujathan Vs State of Kerala

Najeeb v.H.and Another Vs S.I.of Police,Ekm.Town N.Police Stn.&Anr

Solomon Chacko Vs State of Kerala