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. 61 of 2008() --------------------------- Cr.No.45/07 OF BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- HARISH CHANDRAN.K.. CHOMAR, KOPPALA KOCHI HOUSE ,MALLAM P.O. MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.61 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the sole accused in a crime alleging commission of the offence punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was allegedly carrying a sack containing 100 packets, each containing 100 ml of illicit liquor. The excise party reached the scene of occurrence on 22.12.07. He allegedly abandoned the contraband articles and took to his heels. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false. The petitioner was not present at the scene at all. The excise officials had come across some articles and are now making false allegations against the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contemporaneous seizure mahazer as well as the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioner clearly. There are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary B.A.No.61 of 2008 2 equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . The contemporaneous documents reveal the complicity of the petitioner and I have no reason at this stage to assume that the allegations are made falsely against the petitioner. The petitioner, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek bail in the usual and ordinary course. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders 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/-