IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 225 of 2008() E ---------------------------- CRMP.2441/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA O.R.71/07 OF PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SANTHOSH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, CHANTHIRUTHIL VEEDU, NARANGANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON SMT.LOVELY SAMSON RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. `````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 225 OF 2008 E `````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th 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 2 litres of arrack on 06.12.2007. The petitioner has no history of any criminal antecedents, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false and vexatious. The petitioner's wife lodged a complaint before the District Collector alleging that certain persons in the locality, who were leaders of a local 'pourasamithi', were tormenting the lady and attempting to make sexual advances against her. It is the case of the petitioner that the said persons had prevailed upon the excise officials to foist a false case against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has not committed any offence. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the BA.225/08 : 2 : application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. On specific directions, the learned Public Prosecutor has taken instructions and he submits that the complaint to the District Collector, copy of which is produced as Annexure- A1, had been received by the District Collector but that was received after the crime in this case was registered on 6.12.07. It is the case of the prosecution that the said complaint must evidently have been lodged after the registration of the crime in this case. No further action is necessary on that complaint, it is submitted. 4. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for me to embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations in the said complaint, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A1. I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the contemporaneous seizure mahazar and the occurrence report clearly reveal the complicity of the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender before the BA.225/08 : 3 : investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. 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. 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