IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2286 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ CRMP.1011/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD (C.R.NO.10/2008 OF AGALI EXCISE RANGE) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ------------------------ SANTHOSH, S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR AGED 36 YEARS, POYYANAMPUZHA HOUSE KALLAMALA VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR AGALI EXCIE RANGE, AGALI, MANNARKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2286 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. Two litres of arrack were allegedly found in his possession on 13.3.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. At the time of recovery, the petitioner was not available in his house. Recovery was even admittedly effected from a shed near the house of the petitioner. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The petitioner is involved in another crime. The petitioner was not available in the house at the time of recovery. Only his wife was present The article was certainly in the possession of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, BA.2286/08 : 2 : the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. 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. 5. 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