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. 787 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.7/2008 OF ARYANAD EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- SOBHANA. D/O.BHARATHI, HOUSE NO.AP XIV- 24, MANKODA LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KOTTAKKAKOM MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 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.787 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner, a woman, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found to be in possession of 2.5 litres of arrack on 15.01.08. She could not be arrested on that date as the detecting party did not consist of any woman excise official. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He prays that direction may be issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in her favour. 3. The application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available indications reveal the complicity of the petitioner. There are no circumstances to justify the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The contemporaneous records do all indicate the complicity of the petitioner. I find no features in this case which B.A.No.787 of 2008 2 can justify or warrant 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. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-