IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 329 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.R.32/07 OF PARALI EXCISE RANGE PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 --------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, S/O PADMA KOMALAN, CHALIRKKADU, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SANAL, S/O VASU, KUNNIL VEEDU, CHALIRKKADU, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SUNNY, S/O VARGHESE, VALOLICKAL VEEDU, PULIYAMPULLI, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. RAGHAVAN, S/O RAMAN, KAPPIL VEEDU, PULIYAMPULLI, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. RAJAPPAN, NAMPULLI PURAYIL, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING EXCISE INSPECTOR, PARALI EXCISE RANGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 329 OF 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5. Altogether there five accused persons. All the five had allegedly attempted to transport arrack on 23.12.07 when they were intercepted by the detecting excise party. Each of them was allegedly carrying a tube which contained about 20 litres of arrack. They ran away on seeing the excise party. They could not be apprehended. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar and the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioners. Their names are allegedly ascertained from the local witnesses. Investigation is in progress. Petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false and vexatious. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. BA.329/08 : 2 : 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the first accused has criminal antecedents, which point to the culpability of the petitioners. There are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may now be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate or the investigating officer and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I find merit in the opposition of 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 petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. BA.329/08 : 3 : 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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