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. 564 of 2008() ---------------------------- [IN CR NO.27/06 OF NADAPURAM EXCISE RANGE] : PETITIONER: ---------------------------- CHEMBRAMMAL SREEDHARAN, NIDUMPARAMBU P.O, KALLADU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 506. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NADAPURAM THROUGH 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.564 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused in a crime registered under the Kerala Abkari Act. 770 litres of wash was allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner and two others on 29/8/2006. All the three accused persons ran away. Two of them (Accused 2 and 3) were subsequently apprehended. They have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has not so far been arrested or apprehended. The petitioner contended that he is not the person who remains on the array of accused. It was his contention that on the basis of some mistaken perception, he was being sought to be arrested. 2. Interim directions were issued in this bail application on 01/02/2008. The petitioner made himself available before the investigating officer. The investigating officer now categorically asserts that the petitioner is one of the three persons who was available at the scene of the crime and had run away. Other materials available also show the truth of that assertion. Insignificant difference in the description of the petitioner is not B.A.No.564/08 2 sufficient to generate any reasonable doubt about the identity of the first accused. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. He may be permitted to surrender and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. 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. 4. 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) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.564/08 3 B.A.No.564/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007