Vasantha vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7439 of 2007()


1. VASANTHA, MELEPUTHEN VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.P.SHINOD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/12/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.7439 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 4th day of December, 2007

                                   ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner, a woman, faces

allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found

to be in possession of 3 litres of arrack on 14.11.2007. She

could not be arrested as the detecting excise party did not consist

of any woman official. Investigation is in progress. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. The article in question was not

kept by the petitioner at the place from where it was recovered.

The husband of her servant had allegedly kept the article there.

The allegations against the petitioner are raised without any valid

justification, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

All the available indications point to the culpability of the

petitioner. No circumstances exist warranting or justifying the

invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section

B.A.No.7439 of 2007 2

438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before

the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and then seek

regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public

Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public

Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner

must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or

the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and

ordinary course. I find no features in this case which can justify

or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable

discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

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/-

B.A.No.7439 of 2007 3