IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 761 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.R. 2/08 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SUKUMARA NAIK, AGE 30/08, S/O.SANJEEVA NAIK, KELAGINA PADE HOUSE, VORKADY VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 761 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 1200 x 100 ml of arrack in packets. The incident took place on 10.1.08. The petitioner took to his heels and he could not be apprehended. The petitioner is named in the seizure mahazar and in the occurrence report. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. It is a clear case of mistaken identity. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All the available indications suggest the BA.761/08 : 2 : complicity of the petitioner. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the allegations against the petitioner are unjust or that the allegations are based on mistaken identity of the miscreants. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, 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 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 BA.761/08 : 3 : 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