IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 190 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.41/07 OF BADIADUKA EXCISE RANGE, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER : ACCUSED ----------------- MANIKANDAN @ MANI,S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 30,PATHANADUKAM DESOM,MULIYAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------- 1. INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE,BADIYADUKKA. 2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.190 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that on 07.12.07 he was engaged in the illicit activity of transportation of contraband arrack in a motorcycle. Seeing the hostile local people, he allegedly abandoned the motorcycle and the contraband article and took to his heels. The local people identified the petitioner as the person who ran away abandoning the motorcycle and the contraband liquor. 200 packets each containing 100 ml of arrack were available in the vehicle. Excise party, on receipt of information, reached the scene. They found the motorcycle and the contraband article. They were seized under a mahazer. The contemporaneous seizure mahazer as well as the occurrence report show that the local people had identified the miscreant to be the petitioner herein. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He was not the person who was riding the B.A.No.190 of 2008 2 motorcycle and who had abandoned the motorcycle and the contraband article and ran away. The petitioner has been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused and is being proceeded against. He apprehends arrest at any moment. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications point to the culpability of the petitioner. The petitioner does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no circumstances which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case by anyone interested against him. I find no reason to discard the material presently available in the contemporaneous documents that the petitioner is the one who abandoned the article and ran away. At any rate, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner, I agree B.A.No.190 of 2008 3 with the learned Public Prosecutor, must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing 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/-