IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 943 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.35/05 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ P. SUDHAKARA RAI, S/O.UMAVATHI AGED 40 YEARS, PARINJA HOUSE, BADOOR VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA (CR.NO. 35/2005 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 943 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 400 packets of arrack each containing 100 ml. on 3/10/05. The petitioner allegedly abandoned the articles and ran away. His name is mentioned in the contemporaneous seizure mahazar as also the occurrence report. The Excise Officials have not been able to apprehend the petitioner so far, though the investigation must have been in progress from 3/10/05. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the petitioner has no history of any criminal antecedents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He may now be granted B.A. No. 943 OF 2008 -: 2 :- anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances to justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to 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. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that there are 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. The petitioner, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. 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 B.A. No. 943 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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