IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 963 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 308/07 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- BABU,S/O.GOPALAN PULIMOOTTIL, MAILADUM PARA KOCHARAKARAYIL, ANAKKARA VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM CRIME NI, 308/07 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 963 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to carry in his possession 72 litres of arrack, when the police party, on prior information, intercepted him at about 7.30 p.m. on 23.12.2007. He abandoned the article and took to his heels. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar and the F.I.R. reveal the complicity of the petitioner. The witnesses who were questioned, confirmed his involvement. The petitioner was earlier an accused in one case. But it is submitted that he has been acquitted in that crime already. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. False allegations are raised against him because of his alleged involvement in an earlier crime, though he B.A.No. 963 of 2008 2 has been acquitted in that crime. He may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, prays the counsel. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the available indications point to the complicity of the petitioner. He submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The learned Prosecutor points out that there is not even an allegation that the Investigating Officer had any oblique motive or malice against the petitioner. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. 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. At this stage it cannot be lightly assumed that the allegations against the petitioner are unfounded or are raised without any valid justification. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of B.A.No. 963 of 2008 3 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) Judge tm