IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6001 of 2007()
1. SHAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.6001 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the
second accused. Altogether there are three accused persons.
The crux of the allegations is that 2000 litres of wash was kept in
the possession of accused 1 and 2. Seeing the excise party, they
allegedly took to their heels and could not be apprehended.
Third accused is the landlord. Name of the petitioner is shown
as one of the persons who had run away on seeing the excise
party in the occurrence report and in the seizure mahazer.
Detection took place on 4/12/2006. The petitioner has not been
arrested so far. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He may be granted
anticipatory bail, it is prayed. His name has been given falsely to
the excise officials by some local persons including one of the
attesters to the seizure mahazer who has animosity against the
petitioner. This, in short, is the plea.
B.A.No.6001/07 2
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there
are no circumstances warranting invocation of the jurisdiction
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor
submits that this 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 ordinary course.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The
allegations are serious. The name of the petitioner appears in
the earliest contemporaneous document. At the moment and
with the available inputs, there is no reason to assume that the
allegations are false. In fact, no specific allegation even, that the
excise party has any ill will or animosity against the petitioner is
raised The attempt to suggest that there is animosity for one of
the attesters to the seizure mahazer against the petitioner is not
now shown to be reasonable or acceptable. I am in these
circumstances, 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
B.A.No.6001/07 3
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.
3. 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)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.6001/07 4
B.A.No.6001/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007