IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 530 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 41/08 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- ANEESH P.SEBASTIAN, S/O.DEVASSY, PERUMBRAYIL HOUSE, PANNIMATTOM, VELLIAYAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.` BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE; ------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJAR POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 530 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. On receipt of discreet prior information, the police party reached the scene of the crime and allegedly recovered 16 bottles of IMFL (total 6 litres), which were kept concealed by the petitioner. The police party had come to the scene on receipt of the specific information about such alleged concealment of liquor by the petitioner in that area. A local church festival was going on there and the information received was that such concealment was for illicit sale to persons who came to attend the festival. At the time of recovery the petitioner was admittedly not available at the scene. The police traced witnesses who specifically asserted that the article was kept there by the petitioner. He has been arrayed as accused. Investigation has commenced. He has not been arrested so far. He apprehends imminent arrest. B.A.No. 530 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. At the moment there is no satisfactory material sufficient to deprive the petitioner of his liberty to conclude that the petitioner had kept possession of the contraband article concerned. The learned counsel goes one step forward and argued in the light of the decisions in Sabu v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 173) and Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 845). There is no reason at the moment to assume that the petitioner has committed any offence under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. At worst the allegation against him can only be that he had kept in his possession IMFL in excess of the prescribed maximum quantity. In these circumstances the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there is ample material at the moment collected by the Investigators to come to the safe conclusion that the articles were kept concealed by the petitioner himself. The learned Prosecutor further submits that it would be puerile at the moment and with the available B.A.No. 530 of 2008 3 materials to jump to any conclusion other than the conclusion that the contraband article was kept there for sale. 4. The case diary has been placed before me. I have gone through the statements. Though the petitioner is not shown to have been proceeded against in any previous case, the statements of the witnesses clearly indicate that the petitioner was indulging in such objectionable illicit sale of liquor. 5. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case, which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of 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 B.A.No. 530 of 2008 4 Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm