IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8006 of 2007(N) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.143/07 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADOOR : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- N.VASUDEVAN,S/O. NANU, CHITTACHERIL VEEDU, MUDKIYOORKUNNAM P.O. PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE PREVENTIVE OFFICER ADOOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.8006 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 10 litres of arrack on 12.12.07. When the excise party spotted him, he allegedly abandoned the article and took to his heels. He could not be apprehended. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not present there at all. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He is involved in another similar crime already. The contemporaneous seizure mahazer as well as the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioner beyond controversy. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to falsely implicate the petitioner in this crime. The B.A.No.8006 of 2007 2 petitioner may be directed to be surrendered before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not find any features in this 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. 5. This 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. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge B.A.No.8006 of 2007 3