IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 22 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (IN CRIME NO.57/2007 OF ARYANADU EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ SHEELA, AGED 35 YEARS, ROHINI NIVAS, KOTTAKKAKOM MURI,ARYANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: STATE: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 22 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner – a woman, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found to be in possession of 10 litres of arrack on 8/7/07. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, she is absolutely innocent. She was available for arrest even admittedly; but she was not arrested as the detecting Excise party did not consist of any women police officials. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I find merit in the opposition by the learned B.A. No. 22 OF 2008 -: 2 :- Public Prosecutor. 4. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 – on the date of surrender itself. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge