IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7984 of 2007() ----------------------------- C.R. 32/07 OF PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- P.PRASEED, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, KEEZHUNNI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI P.O., THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, 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 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 7984 OF 2007 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th 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 engage himself in the act of distillation. 50 litres of wash and 3 litres of arrack as also implements for distillation were allegedly seized. The petitioner on seeing the detecting excise party, took to his heels and could not be apprehended. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not present in the locality. He has been falsely implicated. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications suggest the complicity of the petitioner. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar as well as the occurrence report do reveal the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and BA.7984/07 : 2 : seek regular bail in th ordinary course, it is submitted. 4. 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. 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) aks