IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 597 of 2008() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.2/2008 BEFORE THE CHANGANACHERRY EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- HARIKUTTAN, KRISHNA BHAVANAM, CHAMPAKKARA, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHANGANACHERRY 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 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 597 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He, along with his brother-in-law, was arrayed as accused. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. Brother-in-law is the first accused. The crux of the allegations is that a large quantity (238 x 750 ml) of IMFL was imported from Goa and was being transported by the first accused on behalf of the petitioner, his brother-in-law, to the premises of the petitioner. The 1st accused was intercepted by the excise officials on the way on 12.1.08. He was arrested. He stated that he was transporting it to the premises of the 2nd accused on his behalf. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that BA.597/08 : 2 : the petitioner is innocent. There was neither import or transportation by him. His brother-in-law cannot be held to have transported the consignment on his behalf. The petitioner cannot have any responsibility for such transportation by his brother-in-law. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available inputs eminently suggest the complicity of the petitioner and the petitioner would not, at any rate, be entitled to the invocation of extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 BA.597/08 : 3 : appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the 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