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. 658 of 2008() ---------------------------- [CRIME NO.16/2007 OF CHANGANASSERY EXCISE RANGE] : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, AGED 41, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, PANACHIKKAVU P.O., PERUNNA WEST, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER 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.658 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly keeping 7 litres of spirit in his possession. On 02/10/2007, on seeing the excise party, he allegedly took to his heels and could not be apprehended. The petitioner is shown as an accused in the contemporaneous seizure mahazer and the occurrence report. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. A contention was raised that he was not the Raveendran referred to in the seizure mahazer. Interim directions were issued to resolve that controversy. The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer on 12/2/2008. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not appear as directed. 3. Be that as it may, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no semblance of doubt about the identity of the miscreants in this case. The petitioner is the said miscreant. This is not the first time the petitioner is getting involved in an abkari crime. Earlier also there were crimes under the Kerala Abkari Act registered against the petitioner. Excise people are in a position to B.A.No.658/08 2 correctly identify the petitioner. Even going by the version of the accused the petitioner's name, father's name and the house name are all identical. The insignificant difference between the real house name of the petitioner and the house name mentioned in the seizure mahazer is of no crucial significance at all. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, 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 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 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) B.A.No.658/08 3 jsr B.A.No.658/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007