IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1970 of 2008() ----------------------------- C.R.NO. 21/08 OF CHATHANNOOR EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- SATHYABHAMA RODU VILA VEEDU, EDAYADY CHERRY,THONIPARA, BHOOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1970 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a handicapped woman, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found to be in possession of 1.3 litres of arrack on 12.3.2008 when she was intercepted by the Excise party. She could not be arrested on that day as the detecting excise party did not consist of any woman official. She has not been arrested thereafter. The learned Prosecutor points out that the petitioner has two other cases also, both under the Abkari Act, registered against her. Investigation is in progress. She apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. False allegations are being raised against her. The learned counsel relies on Annex.3 seizure mahazar which indicates that the Excise Party had made some detection from an adjacent house also on the very same day at about the B.A.No. 1970 of 2008 2 very same time. The counsel submits that false and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioner. It is very unlikely that two such crimes could have been detected from adjacent spots within a span of 15 minutes, submits the counsel. In these circumstances it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that merely because one member of the Excise Party had detected another offence from an adjacent building, it cannot be assumed or inferred that the allegations raised in the present case is not justified. At any rate, there is nothing inherently improbable or artificial in the version of the Detecting Officer as to persuade this court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. She may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any 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. The mere fact that the Excise Party had come to the scene of the occurrence and detected two crimes at about the B.A.No. 1970 of 2008 3 same time is no reason to doubt the version of the detecting officer. 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 usual course. 5. 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. 6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is disabled. That fact is borne out by the records. The petitioner prays for permission to raise this plea before the learned Magistrate. Needless to say, the said plea, if raised, must be considered by the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm