IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1178 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR.NO.148/07 OF ARYANAD EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- VINOD, BINDU BHAVAN, NALLAYANI, KOTTAKKAKOM, ARYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ EXCISE INSPECTOR, ARYANAD EXCISE RANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1178 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly engaged in illicit transportation of 35 litres of arrack in a motor-cycle. When he was intercepted, he abandoned the articles and ran away. The incident took place on 17/11/07. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar, occurrence report etc., do all reveal the complicity of the petitioner clearly. The vehicle documents further reveal that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that B.A. No. 1178 of 2008 -: 2 :- the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He may now be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. Final report has not been filed yet. The petitioner has to be interrogated. Only then, investigation can be completed. There are no reasons at all to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.438 of the 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 agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that there are no features in this case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner 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, B.A. No. 1178 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