IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 294 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.1/08 OF BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- SREEDHARAN.M., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BABU, GADIGUDDE, KUMBADJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CR.NO.1 OF 2008 OF BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE), KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.294 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly having in his possession 105 packets of Karnataka arrack, each containing 100 ml. He took to his heels and the detecting party could not arrest him. 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 in any way involved in the crime. It is a clear case of mistaken identity. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All the available indications point to the culpability of the petitioner. The contemporaneous seizure mahazer shows the involvement of the petitioner and his complicity. There are no circumstances whatsoever justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.294 of 2008 2 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find no reason to discard or throw overboard the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was the person who ran away from the scene of crime to avoid the apprehension by the detecting party. I do not, in these circumstances, 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. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-