High Court Kerala High Court

Prabha vs Excise Inspector on 21 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Prabha vs Excise Inspector on 21 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5074 of 2007()


1. PRABHA, S/O. JOHNSON,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EXCISE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :21/08/2007

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                        B.A.No.5074 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------------
             Dated this the 21st day of August 2007

                               O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, along

with the co-accused, faces allegations of having kept in their

possession 15 litres of arrack on 13/12/2006. Seeing the

detecting excise party, the petitioner allegedly took to his heels.

The first accused was arrested. The investigation is in progress.

The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations. He was

not present along with the first accused at all, it is submitted.

Anticipatory bail may, in these circumstances, be granted to the

petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

allegations clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. The

contemporaneous seizure mahazer as also the occurrence report

do clearly reveal the presence and complicity of the petitioner.

In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may not be granted to

the petitioner, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

B.A.No.5074/07 2

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

Prosecutor. I do not find any features in this case which would

justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, 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.

5. 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.5074/07    3

B.A.No.5074/07    4

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007