IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 837 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.236/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.1/08 OF COYALMANNAM EXCISE RANGE .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ RAJAN ALIAS KANDAMUTHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 46 YEARS,MUTHANPARAMBU HOUSE PULINELLI, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSPECTOR COYALMANNAM EXCISE RANGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.837 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to keep in his possession 5 litres of coloured arrack. When the excise party attempted to intercept him, he abandoned the articles and took to his heels. The petitioner could not be apprehended. Seizure was effected. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He was not the person who allegedly ran away from the scene of the crime. He may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail and saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contemporaneous document reveals the complicity of the petitioner. Seizure mahazer as also the occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioner, specifically. There is no reason B.A.No.837/08 2 now to assume that the allegation against the petitioner are not justified, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is involved in another crime under the Kerala Abkari Act. I am satisfied in these circumstances 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) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.837/08 3 B.A.No.837/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007