IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 881 of 2008()
1. K.B.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
B.A. No. 881 OF 2008 E
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces
allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. He was allegedly
found to be in possession of 5 litres of arrack on 2.2.08.
Crime has been registered. Petitioner is the 2nd accused.
The 1st accused was arrested at the spot. The petitioner’s
name appears in the seizure mahazar itself as one of the
accused i.e., A2. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been
dragged into this case with malafide and oblique motive. The
excise official misbehaved towards the sister-in-law of the
petitioner and she complained to superior officers. That is
why false allegations are being raised against the petitioner.
BA.881/08
: 2 :
In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to
the petitioner. He may be saved of the undeserved trauma of
arrest and incarceration, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application vehemently. He submits that allegations of
misbehavior towards the sister-in-law of the petitioner are
invented only to vex and harass the excise officials who
detected and investigated the crimes. The learned Public
Prosecutor points out that the petitioner’s brother is involved
in many cases. The petitioner is also involved in an earlier
crime registered as early as in 2005, it is submitted.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor at the request of this
Court had placed before this Court the case diary in crime
24/05 which relates to a crime registered on 11.6.05. The
seizure mahazar in that case as also the occurrence report
have been perused by me. It is clearly seen that fresh
allegations are not raised now (after the complaint of the
sister-in-law of the petitioner) by the excise officials against
him. As early as on 11.6.05 in the seizure mahazar and the
BA.881/08
: 3 :
occurrence report clear allegations are raised against the
petitioner herein also.
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
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