IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 101 of 2008() ---------------------------- CMP.2355/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA CR.NO.129/07 OF THE CHENGANNOOR EXCISE RANGE. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PANAVILA VEEDU, ENNAKKATTU MURI, ENNAKKATTU VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. 2. SURAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PANAVILA VEEDU, ENNAKKATTU MURI, ENNAKKATTU VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, CHENGANNOOR 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 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 101 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused in a crime alleging offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. On receipt of discreet telephonic information, the Excise party allegedly reached the scene of the crime. They had information that the petitioners were engaged in distilling arrack. 4025 litres of Wash and 35 litres of arrack and implements for distillation were seized. By the time the Excise party reached the scene, the petitioners were not available. The seizure was effected. Local witnesses were questioned. The complicity of the petitioners was ascertained. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar and the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioners. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have B.A. No. 101 OF 2008 -: 2 :- not been arrested yet. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. It is prayed that the petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am unable to perceive 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. There is nothing available now to assume that the allegations are being raised against the petitioners without any basis and vexatiously. 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 ordinary and 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, B.A. No. 101 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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