IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 252 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.184/07 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VADAKKEPARAMBIL VEEDU, THIRUVANVADOOR MURI, THIRUVANVADOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY D.G.P. SRI. P.G. THAMPI. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 252 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime in which he is alleged to have committed offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 4 litres of arrack when he was spotted by the Excise party on 5/11/07. The petitioner allegedly took to his heels and could not be apprehended. The Excise party seized the contraband article under a seizure mahazar. Occurrence report has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. This petition was filed on 9/1/08 and this Court wanted the Case Diary to be perused. It was seen that no investigation, worth the name, had been conducted after the B.A. No. 252 OF 2008 -: 2 :- detection on 5/11/07. Explanation of the Investigating Officer was called for. The Investigating Officer has filed a statement. He has appeared in person before this Court. He has filed a statement dated 22/1/08 in which he explains the circumstances under which the investigation did not make much head way when this Court called for the Case Diary on 17/1/08. 3. The Officer, who detected the crime, was transferred. The present Investigating Officer took charge of the office on 11/11/07. Thereafter, he was involved in the special drive to prevent the commission of excise offences. He was sick and he was undergoing treatment as an inpatient for some period of time. He joined duty on 19/1/08 and thereafter the investigation has been continued. In view of the interim directions, the petitioner could not be arrested and the investigation could not be completed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are raised against the petitioner by the Excise Officials. A local toddy shop licensee is on inimical terms with the petitioner who has been raising objections against the conduct of the toddy shop in that area. Because of this animosity, the toddy shop licensee/contractor is influencing the Excise Officials to raise B.A. No. 252 OF 2008 -: 3 :- false and vexatious allegations against the petitioner. This, in short, is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned Director General of Prosecutions, who has appeared today, opposes the application. The learned D.G.P. submits that the available inputs clearly point to the culpability of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; in the sense that no crime has been registered earlier against the petitioner. The pieces of information collected satisfy the Investigating Officer that the petitioner has for sometime been indulging in such activity though he has not been apprehended so far. The contemporaneous seizure mahzar and the occurrence report clearly reveal the complicity of the petitioner. Independent attestors to the seizure mahazar, who were available at the scene, have confirmed the complicity of the petitioner. In these circumstances, in any view, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The Case Diary has been perused by me today also. The investigation has made much head way. I accept the explanation offered by the Investigating Officer for inaction B.A. No. 252 OF 2008 -: 4 :- during the interregnum period. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to find any features in this case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned D.G.P., is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 7. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 252 OF 2008 -: 5 :-