IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 166 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.1522/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA CRIME NO.35/06 OF MANANTHAVADY EXCISE RANGE .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- PUSPA, W/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PUTHUVILVILA HOUSE, P.O.VALAD, THAVINHAL, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.166 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman, was allegedly found to keep in her possession 40 litres of wash in/near her house when she was intercepted by the excise officials on 15.07.06. Her husband does not reside in that house. He is employed as a cable operator in Kannur. On 15.07.07 she could not be arrested as there was no woman official in the detecting party. She was not hence arrested. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. No contraband article was seized from her possession. False and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioner. The petitioner may hence be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available indications point to the complicity of the petitioner. There are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek B.A.No.166 of 2008 2 regular bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the statements of the petitioner clearly reveal that the illicit activity of distillation was taking place in the premises and that the requisite articles were being brought by, and the end product was being marketed through, a neighbour of hers. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive 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 surrender 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/- B.A.No.166 of 2008 3