IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 597 of 2008()
1. HARIKUTTAN, KRISHNA BHAVANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHANGANACHERRY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B.A. No. 597 OF 2008 F
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces
allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He, along with his
brother-in-law, was arrayed as accused. Petitioner is the 2nd
accused. Brother-in-law is the first accused. The crux of the
allegations is that a large quantity (238 x 750 ml) of IMFL was
imported from Goa and was being transported by the first
accused on behalf of the petitioner, his brother-in-law, to the
premises of the petitioner. The 1st accused was intercepted
by the excise officials on the way on 12.1.08. He was
arrested. He stated that he was transporting it to the
premises of the 2nd accused on his behalf. Crime has been
registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
BA.597/08
: 2 :
the petitioner is innocent. There was neither import or
transportation by him. His brother-in-law cannot be held to
have transported the consignment on his behalf. The
petitioner cannot have any responsibility for such
transportation by his brother-in-law. 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 all
available inputs eminently suggest the complicity of the
petitioner and the petitioner would not, at any rate, be entitled
to the invocation of extraordinary equitable discretion under
section 438 Cr.P.C.
4. 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
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
BA.597/08
: 3 :
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)
aks