IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1234 of 2008() ----------------------------- C.R.NO.23/05 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KUTTANAD : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SABU, S/O.PAPPACHAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, NADUVILAMURI, THALAVADY VILLAGE, EDATHUA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KUTTANAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1234 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that 20 litres of spirit was found in possession of the petitioner on 05.11.05. He was not available for arrest. He has not been arrested so far. Investigation is in progress. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is no way responsible for the alleged seizure of 20 litres of spirit on 05.11.05. It was not recovered from his possession. Anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available indications suggest to the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner has criminal antecedents also. The contemporaneous seizure mahazer as well as the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioner. The materials collected so far do also B.A.No.1234 of 2008 2 point to the complicity of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, there is no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find no reason to assume that the allegations against the petitioner are false or are raised vexatiously with malicious intent. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. 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/-