IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 215 of 2008() ---------------------------- O.R.NO.10/03 OF PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE : PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- UDHAYAN, S/O.KESHAVAN, VADAKKEKULAMTHADATHIL, MEZHUVELI, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.215 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was allegedly found to be engaged in the activity of selling arrack. He had 1.5 litres of arrack and a glass in his possession. Seeing the excise party, he allegedly took to his heels. He could not be apprehended. The seizure mahazer prepared contemporaneously reveals the name and involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The crime was registered as early as On 11.04.03. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The petitioner now apprehends imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegation against the petitioner is improbable. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that there are satisfactory indications pointing to the culpability of the B.A.No.215 of 2008 2 petitioner. The contemporaneous seizure mahazer as well as the prompt occurrence report reveal the name of the petitioner as the accused. It is idle to assume that the crime against the petitioner has been registered with any mala fide or oblique motives. Absence of the same is eloquently declared by the simple fact that the petitioner has not been arrested for the last 4 years. This, the learned Public Prosecutor submits, 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 course. 3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, 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. I am unable to perceive any features in this case that would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders B.A.No.215 of 2008 3 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/-