Bail Appl v. No. 7160 of 2008() CRIME NO.521/08 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With this direction, petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ss. 3, 7
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for interrogation and hence, he has to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE.
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7160 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008
O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1996 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. According to prosecution, on getting information, respondent officials went to the place of occurrence and found that petitioner, who is second accused in the crime, was in the process of attempting to transport 50 kg of rice from the ration shop, in violation of the various provisions of law. Hence, motorbike was intercepted and article was seized. Petitioner, who was present at the scene, escaped on seeing the respondent officials and hence, he could not be arrested. The person, who was in charge of the sale of article in the ration shop was hence, arrested from the spot and he is first accused.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is implicated as an accused only because he happened to be the registered owner of the motorbike. He has absolutely nothing to do with the offence. Hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA.7160/08 2
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that petitioner was present at the place, when the respondent officials intercepted the motorbike in which the 50 kg of rice was attempted to be transported. Only because he could not be arrested from the spot, it cannot be said that he has not committed the offence. He is particularly since the R.C owner of the vehicle, it is submitted. It is also submitted that on enquiry made also, it is revealed that petitioner was the person who ran away from the spot.
Operative part
On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for interrogation and hence, he has to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, respondent is at liberty to arrest petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this direction, petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — ss. 3, 7.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Nov 2008. The bench was K HEMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.