IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1096 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.2 OF 2008 OF EDATHUA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------- SHIBU, S/O.PAPPACHAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, THALAVADY VILLAGE, EDATHUA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDATHUA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1096 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether there are 2 accused persons. They face allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that on 01.01.08, two persons had transported 40 litres of spirit in a motorcycle. When they were intercepted by the officials both of them took to their heels and could not be arrested. Long later information was received that the vehicle is belonged to the petitioner and the petitioner along with the 2nd accused was actually involved in the transportation. The 1st accused has been arrested. He has already been granted regular bail as per order dated 12.02.08 in B.A.No.672 of 2008. The facts have been referred to in detail in the said order. This order must be read in continuation of the said order. Hence I am not adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The allegations are raised without any basis against the petitioner. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.No.1096 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, at any rate, the petitioner has got to be interrogated to resolve the mystery of the crime. The available indications clearly show that the petitioner along with the 2nd accused was present in the vehicle at the relevant time and that he had run away at the time of interception. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, prays that anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioner. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The fact that the 2nd accused has been granted regular bail already is no reason to justify the prayer for anticipatory bail by the petitioner herein. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the B.A.No.1096 of 2008 3 petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 6. 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/-