IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7858 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 223/07 OF KOLLANCODE POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, ODUVAMKADU, PULLADU, ERIMAYUR VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 7858 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. He, along with two co-accused, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. 53 x 35 litres of spirit in cans were recovered from the building in the possession of the petitioner and 5 x 35 litres of spirit were recovered from a car, which allegedly belonged to the petitioner, parked in front of the shop of the petitioner. First accused, an employee of the petitioner, was available at the scene. On 12.8.2007 when the recovery was effected he was arrested. Third accused is a person who has brought the spirit in the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner has two other cases under the Abkari Act also pending against him. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner was not available at the scene of the crime. He apprehends imminent arrest. B.A.No. 7858 of 2007 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He points out that all the available indications point convincingly to the complicity of the petitioner. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned B.A.No. 7858 of 2007 3 Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm