IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1490 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 101/08 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS - ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. (A2) RANJAN, KATTATTU VEEDU, MATTOM VADAKKU MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. (A3) SUTHAN, KATTATTU VEEDU, MATTOM VADAKKU MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 3. (A4) SASI @ KINGINI, KATTATTU VEEDU, MATTOM VADAKKU MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1490 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 to 4. 595 litres of wash and 20 litres of arrack along with utensils for distillation were allegedly seized on 18.2.2008. Such articles were kept in the possession of four accused persons, including the petitioners herein. Seeing the police party they allegedly took to their heels. They could not be apprehended. Their complicity is revealed and their names are stated in the contemporaneous seizure mahazar and the F.I.R. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. They have no record of any criminal antecedents, reports the learned Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have been vexatiously arrayed as accused. They may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel. B.A.No. 1490 of 2008 2 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. They may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find 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 petitioners. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners 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 usual course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must B.A.No. 1490 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm