IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1938 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 73/08 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- DEVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VEMBRA, NANNIYALE P.O., PERUMATTY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1938 OF 2008 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly keeping in his possession for illicit sale 3.5 litres of IMFL on 10.3.08. Seeing the detecting police officials the petitioner allegedly took to his heels and could not be apprehended. The complicity of the petitioner is revealed in the contemporaneous documents prepared at the scene as also in the occurrence report. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even accepting the entire allegations, the total quantity of IMFL is well within the maximum prescribed. He further submits that the petitioner was not available at the scene at all. The mere fact that the contraband article was found BA.1938/08 : 2 : available in such premises cannot justify an instant allegation against the petitioner for possession of such liquor. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegation specifically is of illicit sale of liquor and in these circumstances, the plea that the total quantity may be below the maximum permitted quantity for possession cannot in any way help the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner had not run away from the scene of the crime. He was not keeping contraband article in his possession. There is nothing to assume that the articles were kept in the premises by the petitioner. Somebody else may have done the same, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would BA.1938/08 : 3 : 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