IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7986 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME 53/07 OF KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- NAVEEN M.K., S/O.LATE MOHANA, AGED 25 YEARS, KUNTENGARADKA HOUSE, NEAR Q.W.L.P. SCHOOL, P.O.KUMBALA 671 321, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SRI.JACOB E SIMON RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE, KUMBLA, KASARGOD, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 7986 OF 2007 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner was allegedly found to keep in his possession 300 x 100 ml of Karnataka arrack on 11.12.07. On seeing the excise party, the petitioner allegedly abandoned the articles and took to his heels. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available indications point to the culpability of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in BA.7986/07 : 2 : these circumstances, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the name of the petitioner figures as the accused in the contemporaneous seizure mahazar and in the occurrence report. There is no merit in the contention that the petitioner was not the person who was keeping possession of the articles, it is submitted. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no reason now to assume that the allegations are totally unfounded or are raised vexatiously. 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 BA.7986/07 : 3 : and ordinary course. 6. 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