High Court Kerala High Court

Preetha vs The Excise Inspector on 22 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Preetha vs The Excise Inspector on 22 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5144 of 2007()


1. PREETHA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.VELAYUDHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SANTHOSHKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/08/2007

 O R D E R
                            R.BASANT, J.
                         ----------------------
                         B.A.No.5144 of 2007
                     ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 22nd day of August 2007


                                O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first

accused. Her husband is the second accused. They were

allegedly found to keep in their joint possession in their house

200 x 100 ml of Karnataka arrack on 13/7/2007. As only the

petitioner was available in the house when the detection was

made and as there was no lady official in the detecting party, she

was not arrested by the officials. Investigation is in progress.

Her husband is still absconding. The petitioner apprehends

imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is absolutely innocent. She was not in conscious

exclusive possession of the contraband article. In these

circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the

petitioner, it is urged.

3. Application was opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there

B.A.No.5144/07 2

are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of

the 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 this is not a fit case where such extraordinary equitable

discretion can or ought to be invoked. This is a fit case where

the petitioners 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.5144/07    3

B.A.No.5144/07    4

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007