IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6340 of 2007()
1. PAPPANKUTTY, S/O. KOORAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.6340 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations
under Section 55 (b) of the Kerala Abkari Act. It is alleged that in the
house of the petitioner, distillation was going on. 4 litres of arrack and
implements for distillation were allegedly seized from the house of the
petitioner. When the police party reached the scene on receipt of
prior discreet information, a person was seen running away from the
house of the petitioner. There was no identification of that person.
After effecting seizures, the crime was registered raising allegations
against the petitioner. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest. His nephew has contested the election
against the ruling political front. The petitioner had taken active part
in such election. The petitioner has hence been victimised by the
members of the ruling front by raising such a false allegation against
the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent. Anticipatory bail may be
granted to the petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no
B.A.No.6340 of 2007 2
circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the
extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. At the
moment and with the available inputs, a conclusion even prima facie
that the petitioner is being hounded on account of his political activity
is not justified at all, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .
3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. There is nothing at the moment to even sail to a
provisional conclusion or even a genuine apprehension that the
petitioner is being victimised on the basis of false allegations
engineered against him by persons interested against him. I am
satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the
ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating
Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek
regular bail.
4. 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.6340 of 2007 3