IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 779 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.139/07 OF ADOOR EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VIJAYAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, PERUMPALLICKAL LEKSHAM VEEDU,PERUMPALLICKAL MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, ADOOR EXCISE RANGE, ADOOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 779 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly found to be in possession of 1.800 litres of arrack. When the Excise party reached him, he allegedly abandoned the articles and ran away. He could not be apprehended. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar as also the occurrence report reveal the name of the petitioner as the miscreant. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has one more case under the Abkari Act registered against him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False allegations are B.A. No. 779 OF 2008 -: 2 :- raised against him. Some local persons may have implicated the petitioner falsely. At any rate, the petitioner does not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and detention. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available inputs point to the culpability of the petitioner. There is no reason to assume that the allegations against the petitioner are false. There is no reason for the officials to falsely implicate the petitioner. The mere fact that he has succeeded in giving the slip to the detecting officials is no reason to assume that the allegations are false. The petitioner may be directed to resort to the ordinary course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the usual and normal course of surrendering before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with B.A. No. 779 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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