IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2034 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.66/08 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ AMBUJAKSHAN P.V., S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, VAYATHUR AMSOM, DESOM, ATTARANJHI, ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, ULIKKAL. 2. THE 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 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2034 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the sole accused in a crime registered under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was allegedly carrying 12 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in a bag. He has criminal antecedents. He is involved in two other cases under the Kerala Abkari Act. It is the case of the police that the petitioner was transporting the said quantity of liquor for the purpose of sale. The petitioner was intercepted by the police. The petitioner took to his heels. He could not be arrested. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar, occurrence report etc. do reveal the name of the petitioner as the sole accused in the case. His complicity is thus clearly revealed from the earliest documents. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not in possession of the contraband liquor in question. According to the petitioner the contraband article was recovered from some other two persons B.A.No.2034 of 2008 2 and falsely assuming that the liquor was being transported by them for the purpose of the petitioner, the present false allegations have been raised. The counsel prays that the petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that no other persons are allegedly involved in this crime. The petitioner was carrying the article. He had abandoned the article and run away. In these circumstances the theory that two other persons were intercepted with the contraband article is not correct at all. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no features available in this case which can justify or warrant 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 B.A.No.2034 of 2008 3 Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-