IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 132 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 472/07 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, SAVITHA BHAVAN, PARUTHIYARA, ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 132 OF 2008 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. On 23.12.07, when the police party, on receipt of prior information, went to the residential premises of the petitioner, the petitioner allegedly took to his heels and could not be apprehended. When the premises were searched by the police party, they found 525 litres of arrack kept by the side of the river in the property of the petitioner. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. There was no seizure from his personal possession or from any premises in his possession. False and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioner, it is submitted. BA.132/08 : 2 : 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All available indications clearly point to the fact that the petitioner is the person, who is keeping the contraband articles in his possession in the property in his possession. There is no reason at the moment to doubt or suspect the version of the police. The conduct of the petitioner does also support that conclusion. At any rate, there are no circumstances which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by 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 petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the BA.132/08 : 3 : normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks