IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 881 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.R.8/08 OF KONNI EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.B.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, PUNTHALA PUTHENVEEDU, VAZHAMUTTOM WEST MURI, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON SMT.LOVELY SAMSON RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KONNI EXCISE RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 881 OF 2008 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 5 litres of arrack on 2.2.08. Crime has been registered. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. The 1st accused was arrested at the spot. The petitioner's name appears in the seizure mahazar itself as one of the accused i.e., A2. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been dragged into this case with malafide and oblique motive. The excise official misbehaved towards the sister-in-law of the petitioner and she complained to superior officers. That is why false allegations are being raised against the petitioner. BA.881/08 : 2 : In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. He may be saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest and incarceration, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application vehemently. He submits that allegations of misbehavior towards the sister-in-law of the petitioner are invented only to vex and harass the excise officials who detected and investigated the crimes. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the petitioner's brother is involved in many cases. The petitioner is also involved in an earlier crime registered as early as in 2005, it is submitted. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor at the request of this Court had placed before this Court the case diary in crime 24/05 which relates to a crime registered on 11.6.05. The seizure mahazar in that case as also the occurrence report have been perused by me. It is clearly seen that fresh allegations are not raised now (after the complaint of the sister-in-law of the petitioner) by the excise officials against him. As early as on 11.6.05 in the seizure mahazar and the BA.881/08 : 3 : occurrence report clear allegations are raised against the petitioner herein also. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify 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 in the normal and ordinary course. 6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks