IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 168 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 56/07 OF PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- ASHA ANIL, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.ANILKUMAR, CHIRAKAROTTU VEEDU, ULANADU MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.ANTO THOMAS SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 168 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman, is the second accused in a crime registered for offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that when the Excise party, on receipt of discreet prior information that sale of arrack was going on in the residential compound of the petitioner with the assistance of the first accused, reached the scene of the crime, the first accused was seen engaged in the activity of selling illicit liquor in the premises. He was arrested. He confirmed that the contraband articles do not belong to him and have been entrusted to him by the petitioner for the purpose of sale. 4.5 litres of arrack was allegedly seized. The Excise party did not arrest the petitioner on that day as the party did not consist of woman officials. The incident took place on 17.9..2007. Investigation is in progress. B.A.No. 168 of 2008 2 The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The petitioner has no history of any criminal antecedents, submits the learned Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. It is submitted that the mahazar does not show that the petitioner was actually involved in the sale of the contraband liquor. It is only on the statement of the first accused that the petitioner has been brought on the array of accused. This is impermissible. He prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. The allegations clearly reveal the commission of the crime. The sale was going on in the residential compound of the petitioner. The Excise party had prior information that sale was going on in the residential compound of the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner was not arrested on that day cannot deliver any advantage to the petitioner in the given circumstances. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the Prosecutor. B.A.No. 168 of 2008 3 4. The case diary has been perused by me. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that there are no features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) tm Judge B.A.No. 168 of 2008 4