IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 316 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.17/07 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLAZHY : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. REGHU, AGED 25, S/O.RAVI, MENOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KURICHIKARA, MATTAMPURAM, THRISSUR-680 028. 2. SURENDRAN, AGED 41, S/O.VASU, PALLIAMACKAL HOUSE, P.O.KURICHIKARA, MATTAMPURAM, THRISSUR-680 028. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, KOLAZHY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.316 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a crime registered under the Kerala Abkari Act. Altogether there are two accused persons. Accused persons were allegedly keeping 8.580 litres of illicit liquor for sale in their possession in 43 packets. When the excise party detected the offence on 24/12/2007, the petitioners took to their heels and could not be apprehended. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He points out that the petitioners had run from the scene of the crime. They have been identified by respectable persons of the locality. The contemporaneous document reveal their complicity and involvement. At any rate, the petitioners do not deserve the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. They may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.316/08 2 3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition. I take note of the fact that the contemporaneous documents reveal the name and details of the petitioners. I take note of their identification by the allegedly respectable local witnesses. I take note of the further circumstances relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor that the mobile phone of one of them was available at the scene and at that mobile phone, while the seizure was going on, a call had come from the co-accused to enquire where he had succeeded in escaping. A more detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that any reasons exist to 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 petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer B.A.No.316/08 3 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.316/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007