IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1258 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR NO. 3 OF 2008 OF RANNY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER --------------------------- SAJI KUMAR, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, KOOVAKAVU HOUSE, MUKKADA, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SRI.ANOOP MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, RANNY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1258 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. 385 litres of wash were allegedly found present in the compound of the residential building of the petitioner on 7.1.2008. The petitioner was not available at the scene. The seizure was effected by the Excise party. The petitioner's complicity is revealed in the contemporaneous seizure mahazar. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He has been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He concedes that the petitioner has no history of any criminal antecedents. Investigation reveals that the petitioner is the person who concealed the contraband article in his premises. B.A.No. 1258 of 2008 2 The contemporaneous seizure mahazar reveals the complicity of the petitioner. His assertion that he does not reside in that building and that his wife and children were residing in that building is without any substance. In these circumstances the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. The petitioner's case that he does not reside in the building and his family is residing there is not shown to be clinching and acceptable. At any rate, I am unable to find 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. 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. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the B.A.No. 1258 of 2008 3 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) Judge tm