IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 212 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.32/07 OF MANANTHAVADI EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE. PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.ACHUDHAN PILLAI, IRUVELIL HOUSE, KANJIRAGAD, CHIPPAD, MAKKIYARD, MANANTHAVADI. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, MANANTHAVADI THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 212 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under the Kerala Abkari Act. On receipt of discreet prior information, the Excise party allegedly inspected the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was not present at that time. His wife alone was present. They could not trace any contraband articles from the house. The smell of the alcohol was polluting the atmosphere. The Excise party continued the search. They found 150 litres of Wash in a cage outside the house. It was covered with plastic sheet. The contraband article was seized. The wife of the petitioner, who was available at the scene, allegedly confirmed that the petitioner had kept the articles there. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. B.A. No. 212 OF 2008 -: 2 :- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not present in the house. Some of his opponents, who have political motivations, may have kept the articles there, it is suggested. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be saved of the trauma of arrest and detention, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. At the moment and with the available in puts there is absolutely nothing to doubt or suspect the veracity of the allegations raised against the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner must surrender before the learned B.A. No. 212 OF 2008 -: 3 :- Magistrate and seek regular bail. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge