IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8107 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME 115/07 OF KOORACHUNDU POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- BHASKARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, KOTTAYULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOORACHUNDU AMSOM, ATHIYODI DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOORACHUNDU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 8107 OF 2007 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to engage himself in the illicit activity of unauthorised sale of IMFL on 1.12.07. 1.6 litres of IMFL was available. He allegedly took to his heels and could not be arrested. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegation raised against him is under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and detention. He may now be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the BA.8107/07 : 2 : application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations raised are indicated satisfactorily by the materials collected. The allegations must fall appropriately under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act and the mere fact that there was inadequacy/deficiency in the Section quoted may not be reckoned as sufficient to concede to the petitioner a right to anticipatory bail. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer BA.8107/07 : 3 : 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks