IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 406 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 31/07 OF MANNARKKAD EXCISE RANGE CRMP.4505/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SOUDAMINI, D/O. RAMAN, VALALLOOR HOUSE, KACHERIPARAMBU, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, MANNARKKAD RANGE, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 406 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found to be in possession of 4.5 litres of arrack on 11.12.2007. She was intercepted by the Excise party. She could not be arrested as there was no woman official in the detecting party. 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 innocent. She may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. There are no circumstances to justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, submit the learned Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find B.A.No. 406 of 2008 2 any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm