IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 477 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.R.NO.1/08 OF WADAKKANCHERY EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER: APPLICANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- CHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAKODE VILLAGE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 477 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to keep in his possession and sell 4 litres of arrack when the offence was detected by the Excise party on 4/1/08. A crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contemporaneous seizure mahazar clearly reveals the complicity of the petitioner. In the seizure mahazar as well as B.A. No. 477 OF 2008 -: 2 :- in the occurrence report the involvement of the petitioner is clearly shown. The persons who came to the petitioner to purchase and consume arrack have been questioned by the Investigator. All the available inputs point to the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner may be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal course of surrendering before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I do not find any features in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the 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 in the ordinary and normal course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior B.A. No. 477 OF 2008 -: 3 :- notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge