IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7972 of 2007() ----------------------------- C.R.82/07 OF EXCISE RANGE, KUTTANAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- NATARAJAN M.P., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH THOMAS, KARUKAYIL, KUNTHIRIKAL P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRIM.K.SASEENDRAN SRI.P.S.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUTTANAD RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 7972 OF 2007 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 5 litres of arrack on 12.12.07. When the excise party detected the crime, he allegedly took to his heels and could not be apprehended. His name and details were ascertained by the officials from the local witnesses. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and it is a case of mistaken identity. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for anticipatory bail and points out that all available indications point to the culpability of the petitioner. He further points out that the petitioner is involved in an earlier crime under the Kerala Abkari Act also. BA.7972/07 : 2 : 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 the 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) aks